Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Crazy, crazy guitar/bass ideas - prototypes
- Thread starter reverendrally
- Start date
Sorry, I think I just created the most ridiculous bass possible.
Bahaha! That's awesome.
I just created a thread dedicated to absurdities such as this, feel free to check it out (or maybe make your own)
Create (photoshop) the most ridiculous bass possible.
What exactly is your reason for wanting extra stiffness? I'm confused about your goals here, and the problem(s) you are trying to solve or avoid.
Bruce Johnson
Commercial User
Yes, same here.
What do you mean by your statement that most of the instruments we play these days are over-engineered? You want to build a better bass by doing a sloppier job designing it?
Last edited:
HA! Just when I was getting bored with TB tonight a bunch of crazy engineer types start brainstorming!
I'm in! Subbed!
I'm in! Subbed!
I think I may have confused you and @pilotjones a bit. Sorry about that. Re overengineering, I was referring to "solid beam" nature of most electric basses, specifically fenders I guess. What I'm trying to do is compromise the stiffness of the body for the sake of a more natural decay like an acoustic body. I guess this is the next step in my chambering adventures. You've talked about deliberately weakening the body and that's where I'm heading.
Bruce Johnson
Commercial User
Ah, okay. But to clarify, they are under-engineering their basses, playing it safe by making everything into rigid beams. Stability, sustain, pingy sound, etc are the usual excuses. The result is a solid, beautiful looking, plank of wood with pickups. The sound is all in the pickups. Or maybe a really cool preamp. Low risk, cool looking, yawn, everybody does that.
You, on the other hand, are looking to use superior and excessive engineering to make the frame of the bass participate in the sound, bringing in rich tonal qualities that you can't get from rigid planks of wood with pickups. You are crossing over into the other side of bass building, where only the brave Luthiers venture.
You, on the other hand, are looking to use superior and excessive engineering to make the frame of the bass participate in the sound, bringing in rich tonal qualities that you can't get from rigid planks of wood with pickups. You are crossing over into the other side of bass building, where only the brave Luthiers venture.
Busted I guess. It's all your fault. 
My take: take a large enough but thin piece of wood (say 3/4") and shape it into a body. Bolt the neck on its surface. It's essentially as if the entire bass was routed to the depth of the neck pocket, hence no neck pocket (though there's no routing necessary, because it was thin to begin with). But it's also very thin, thus its structure is compromised, giving it more acoustic sound.
The bridge would need to be tall (I'm thinking sort of like on an upright), or placed on a block of wood. Between the neck and the bridge, you could place your pickup anywhere, and no routing required.
Last, to cover the "big canyon", you could put a top on. A couple designs might work - you can create a rim around the body, or just strategically place a few blocks of wood to crate "pillars" on which the top is placed and secured. The top could essentially be the same shape as the body, with cutouts for pickups and bridge, or in a different shape to facilitate ergonomics and looks.
Is this close to your ideas? I came up with this idea when I tried to think of a way to build a light bass without any real woodworking tools (routers) or skills. If the solidbody design is essentially about taking away wood that is not needed (e.g. neck pocket and pickup routs), this approach adds wood where needed (e.g. pillars). I'm not sure if it's a viable design, but I presume it's not used by large manufacturers because it would take more work and be less reliable than routing, and luthiers wouldn't do it because it's of lesser quality than a properly built bass.
The bridge would need to be tall (I'm thinking sort of like on an upright), or placed on a block of wood. Between the neck and the bridge, you could place your pickup anywhere, and no routing required.
Last, to cover the "big canyon", you could put a top on. A couple designs might work - you can create a rim around the body, or just strategically place a few blocks of wood to crate "pillars" on which the top is placed and secured. The top could essentially be the same shape as the body, with cutouts for pickups and bridge, or in a different shape to facilitate ergonomics and looks.
Is this close to your ideas? I came up with this idea when I tried to think of a way to build a light bass without any real woodworking tools (routers) or skills. If the solidbody design is essentially about taking away wood that is not needed (e.g. neck pocket and pickup routs), this approach adds wood where needed (e.g. pillars). I'm not sure if it's a viable design, but I presume it's not used by large manufacturers because it would take more work and be less reliable than routing, and luthiers wouldn't do it because it's of lesser quality than a properly built bass.
Last edited:
What you're refering to is pretty close to Jens Ritter's Princess guitars...
Ritter Princess Isabella Benson Tribute
Although his are carved for stability. I like what you're thinking there though. Simplicity being the key. I'm got something a little more complex than that planned, but also more simple in some respects. The problem for what you're suggesting is that a bass body is still very wide near the bridge. So, getting it thin enough to really compromise the stiffness would also make it liable to 'creep'. Timber suffers from creep more than most materials. Which is why over time larger wooden beams will sag under a load, even though they're more than strong enough to hold it. It's the same reason we have trussrods in necks. The other problem is of course having such a thin body sticking you in the ribs as you play.
BTW, some really cool ideas here lots of people.
Let's just say the world of music has pretty fixed ideas about the "right" way to design/build instruments. Ned Steinberger has been fighting this for decades. So have Fender and Gibson. Every time they tried to do something different, people voted "more strats/lespauls" with their wallets. I don't expect these instruments to be "viable". I'm not interested in trying to change people's prejudices about design. What I'd like to do is really go out on a limb and see what I can come up with. There are a few people doing such things. Michihiro Matsuda with Rick Toone are the top of that tree...
I'm hoping to push beyond that.
Michihiro Matsuda with Rick Toone are the top of that tree...
I'm hoping to push beyond that.
No sweat. Got any plans for after lunch?
Remember this? drool
For sure part of my inspiration. Also some Carl Thompson in there. I like the simple and elegant aspects of their work. But then again, it's also kinda like Leo's mule for testing pickups.
Last edited:
Ok, so I've teased you all a bit. Let me tell you a bit more of my thinking. I've been thinking hard about trying to make my designs as simple and minimalist as possible. Not just simple in terms of parts, but also in terms of processes. I've been asking myself this question...
How many simple elements really make up a guitar?
How many simple processes really produce a guitar?
Interesting because Leo Fender/George Fullerton and Les Paul also worked their way through this ideas too. In the end I decided an electric guitar is made up of "Three Planks" (that's my trademark, like I'll ever had time to develop it, haha). 1 Neck and 2 body wings. No great surprises there, but how you put it all together is the trick I guess.
I'll build a few crude prototypes with scrap before I go much further with a proper design. I've got 2 guitar necks I can use/abuse for such exercises, so I'll starting hacking them together and we'll go from there.
How many simple elements really make up a guitar?
How many simple processes really produce a guitar?
Interesting because Leo Fender/George Fullerton and Les Paul also worked their way through this ideas too. In the end I decided an electric guitar is made up of "Three Planks" (that's my trademark, like I'll ever had time to develop it, haha). 1 Neck and 2 body wings. No great surprises there, but how you put it all together is the trick I guess.
I'll build a few crude prototypes with scrap before I go much further with a proper design. I've got 2 guitar necks I can use/abuse for such exercises, so I'll starting hacking them together and we'll go from there.