Principle #2:

Good design makes a product useful

“A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.”

Definition of “Useful”

Naturally, when I look up the dictionary definition of the word “useful”, it presents a circular reference involving the word “use” which itself is defined as “employ”. To be “useful” means that something can be used for a practical purpose, or “of a practical or productive kind.” Substituting words leads us to a definition where we’re employing a tool to accomplish a task, like applying a wrench to a nut or bolt. The emphasis is on the practical, getting a job done.

Can opener; a useful gadget

In the context of guitar design, then, what do we consider the word “useful” to mean? What is the job to be done? Is the design geared towards musical purposes, or is it intended to do something else like allowing ugly guys to attract beautiful girls? It depends on what your idea of a practical purpose is at any given time. For our discussion, though, I think we’ll focus on the former rather than the latter as we as designers have more control over the outcome.

We should also consider whether or not the design can be applied to a wide variety of possible uses or targeted to accomplish a specific function. One design may have more utility than another for a particular player, genre, or venue, or be suited for practically any environment that it finds itself in. In other words, a particular guitar may be useful and valuable because of its sonic flexibility, and another guitar may be useful and valuable because it has a very limited capability set but performs those specific functions extremely well.

We could limit our boundaries and simplify, asking ourselves if the design in question makes sounds that musicians can apply to their work. Or, we could expand our scope and ask ourselves if the overall Concept and design can be used to accomplish a practical purpose that may or may not involve sound. My guess is that almost all of us are focused on making music, but that doesn’t mean that the latter isn’t a valid Concept or isn’t useful.

Functional

Let’s consider a guitar design’s capabilities and utility in producing musical sounds. The first question we’ll need to answer is: “Is it playable as a guitar?” Can a guitarist equipped with reasonably sufficient ability be able to employ the design and create music with it? Admittedly I’m setting the bar very low, but I’ve left it open to encompass designs that have either real or virtual strings and can be operated in a manner similar to a traditional guitar. Others may not be so generous in setting their baseline for functionality.

If it is playable, we can then evaluate whether or not the design make it easier or harder to play. Here we’re focused on the intended use of the instrument, the player and genre, etc. An instrument with a 10 foot scale and a neck as big as a fencepost may make musical sounds, but it may not be very easy to play. This is an exaggerated example, but more than one instrument that looks good on paper has proven itself to be difficult to play.

Rick Neilsen of "Cheap Trick" playing around

We want to evaluate a guitar’s performance as well as its appearance on the stand or hanging on the wall. If it has controls of whatever kind, can they be intuitively recognized adjusted during a performance? Can adjustments be made quickly and easily, and are the range of adjustment parameters within useful and functional boundaries?

How about the day to day requirements of playing the guitar? Can I get strings for it? How about a case? Accessories? If a design calls for strings with an unusual scale length, material, anchors/ends, etc., then a limitation in the availability of those items means a limitation in the functionality of the instrument. Custom cases are expensive, and some designs require large cases that are less practical than standard sizes as well as expensive, and these considerations can also be considered as limitations on functionality.
Is the design ergonomic? It should be reasonably comfortable to perform with. Many players need instruments that can accommodate their own physiques, so any design that doesn’t would be deemed dysfunctional.

Acoustic curves

Does the design include features that solve problems for musicians? Is the tool right for the job, and does it address their needs as a performer? If it doesn’t do what a player needs it to, then it doesn’t matter what it looks like.

Psychological and Aesthetic

Let’s assume that a particular guitar design meets our criteria for functionality. Under a very strict definition of usefulness, that would be enough to qualify. What would make it more useful is if the design creates a bond with the player in such a way as it enhances their performance and image while using it. A guitar that doesn’t fight the player is one that allows them to focus less on the mechanics of playing and more on the expression.

Just because a guitar is functional doesn’t mean that it balances well, is comfortable, or feels good to play. A design that comes up short in any of these areas may be deemed dysfunctional. Preferences are going to vary from player to player, as some prefer a thicker neck profile than others, some can live with neck dive while others can’t, and some players can’t get through a 4 hour gig with a heavy guitar.

Guitars routed with chambers to make them lighter

A guitar’s appearance is also an element of its utility. Does the design fit the intended purpose, player and genre? Would it look out of place at a blues jam, coffeehouse gig, jazz club, metal show, etc.? A great player can probably use anything in any venue and make it work for them, but most players are going to gravitate towards something that is not only functional for the type of music they play but also has an appearance to match.

Let’s consider some solidbody electric guitar examples:

Hello Kitty Strat: Originally targeted at pre-adolescent girls, these have become sought after by male players specifically because they look out of place in male-dominated genres of metal. From a functional standpoint, they are straightforward and simple designs that can work well for heavy music. From an aesthetic standpoint, they look completely wrong juxtaposed against songs about death and violence, which is the intended effect the player has in mind. They’d also work both as an instrument and as a prop for your typical pop princess.

Hello Kitty guitar, does the job for some people

Flying V: The three “Modernistic” designs created by Gibson in 1957 were not dramatically different from their predecessors in terms of functionality. Their aesthetic features, however, were an attempt to use then-contemporary aerospace themes as a way to gain back some market share from Fender. If tailfins worked for cars, then it was thought they could work for guitars. The “plank” body featuring mostly flat surfaces instead of carved arches were obviously gaining acceptance, and far easier to manufacture. While these designs initially flopped in the marketplace, they eventually morphed into icons of rockstar imagery, although now they’re found in a variety of genres and venues.

The Flying V was more subtle than the jacket

Countless pointy guitars: These typically have functionality that is well-suited for hair metal, thrash, death metal, and other forms of aggressive music, equipped with locking tremolos, high output pickups, perhaps a kill switch, etc. Aesthetically, they harken back to a simpler time filled with battle-axes, maces, and other sharp pieces of weaponry. They’re also often adorned with graphics to match, and you may wonder what kind of rounds they fire. These aesthetic design elements enhance the functionality of the guitars because they convey an image the performer wants to project. When you want to level a city with rock, an ES-175 probably isn’t going to do it for you. Conversely, not many players are going to bring a BC Rich Mockingbird to a jazz trio gig.

Ouch, this is a sharp guitar!

There are times when a designer will be faced with a series of decisions regarding whether or not to preserve traditional design elements or abandon them. Ned Steinberger opted to eliminate headstocks from his designs because they were functionally unnecessary, and subsequently many players deemed a headless guitar to be too ugly for them. Some even attached fake headstocks to make them look “right”.

Steinberger's minimalist functional guitar

Floyd Rose produced the Discovery series of guitars that featured a double-ball end string technology but opted to include a headstock for aesthetic reasons even though it served no functional purpose. A Concept based on a Strat with a double locking tremolo wouldn’t look right without something that at least resembles a Fender headstock.

The headstock is there simply for the look of it

The Benedetto “Benny” is functionally a simple solid body guitar, but included a number of aesthetic design elements that echo those of their traditional jazz guitars and would look completely at home in a jazz venue.

Beautiful Benedetto Benny

Emphasis on Usefulness

If we accept this principle, then we should evaluate a design’s success by asking ourselves how well the guitar performs in its intended use. When they think of the guitar, a player will judge it based on its ability to produce sound and execute the player’s will. T

Nice headstock Mr Gibson

hey would get the impression that the designer made their choices with utility in mind above appearance or artistic expression.

Am speechless…

Sometimes it appears that designers don’t hold to this principle. A classic example is the Gibson Moderne, where the outline of the headstock takes precedence over the functional benefit of a straight string path from nut slot to tuning head. To make it functional, the designers had to employ posts to guide the string which can’t possibly improve tuning.

A little bit or inlay for you Sir?

Other designs are clearly meant to be more works of art than instrument, even if they’re playable. Some seem to function as merely platforms on which to execute decorative arts, like a canvas for a painter. With extreme examples, it’s almost like displaying the Mona Lisa in a bus station bathroom; its function is to decorate and be viewed, but using it would certainly risk getting damaged. Who would want to be the first to subject a work of art to a case of buckle rash, pick scratches, smoke, and Budweiser?

Industrial Designer Dieter Rams

These 10 principles have become a popular topic amongst designers, although in the end they are just one person’s opinion on what’s good and what’s not. You may or may not appreciate his work, but you’d probably agree that he knows something about what he’s talking about and that the principles are useful in evaluating designs.

Let’s then take his 10 Principles and see how they might apply to the subject of Guitar Design. For the purposes of this series, we’ll take them in their original order with the assumption that they aren’t ranked in terms of importance over or under any other Principle. That way we’ll have something else to contemplate after we’ve batted these ideas around for a while.

Principle #1:

Good design is innovative.

“The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.”

We’re off to a good start. There’s optimism in the first two sentences, indicating that there’s an abundance of things that we’ll be able to innovate with in the future and that not everything has been done yet. We’ll circle back to the last sentence in just a bit.

Definition of “Innovation”

My computer provides a short definition:

make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

If good design is innovative, then we can restate the principle by saying that good design takes something that already exists and changes it using something new. A good guitar design, then, takes our existing guitars and transforms them in a way that hasn’t been done before.

The Wikipedia entry elaborates on the definition:

Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

This difference between Innovation and Invention is important, and I think that often we confuse the two. For the purposes of this article, I think we can stipulate that the guitar was invented a long time ago. You could argue that it was an innovative adaptation of other stringed instruments, but for now, let’s just go with that. The net result is that we’re probably not going to invent the guitar again. We do, however, have lots of opportunities to innovate and change the guitar as it exists today.

A lot of print has been devoted to the origins of the electric solidbody guitar and determining exactly who invented it first. If you apply this definition, though, you could say that the electric solidbody guitar was not an invention per se, but really an example of innovation instead.

In other words:
Invention: The magnetic pickup (even that’s debatable)
Innovation: Installed in a solid body

Bosch sander with velcro hook and loop sandpaper attachment

Other examples of invention and resulting innovation:
Carbon Fiber, CF bicycle frames
Velcro, Hook & Loop sandpaper

Innovating to Solve Constraint problems

It’s been said that Necessity is the Mother of Invention. So what would be the Mother of Innovation? It could be as simple as an idea looking for an implementation, kind of like a  solution in search of a problem. It’s natural to find something new and then try to figure out how you could use it.

It can also be that we look for innovation to solve problems that are caused by constraints issues. A designer may struggle with how to design around a particular problem and identify a solution that may or may not exist yet. In other words, “If I only had X, then I could do Y.” We’ve seen examples of this in the past:

Time/Money/Skills
Manufacturers are always looking for ways to make things faster, for less money, and with less-skilled labor. One way to accomplish this is through simplification. This is the classic Leo Fender approach, leveraging what were then considered modern manufacturing techniques developed in other industries to the design and construction of electric guitars.

A CNC machine creating a guitar body from a computer specification

Taylor neck pocket routing

Tools
Similar to the way the Pin Router was used to innovate new guitar designs, the CNC process has also innovated guitar designs. The equipment allows designers to create concepts that would have been far more difficult using older manufacturing techniques, if at all. You see it manifested in new shapes, contours, and precision surfaces. Taylor guitars are a great example of how the invention of CNC has promoted innovation in guitar design and construction.

Materials
The aerospace industry has a knack for developing new technologies and materials, and eventually those find their way into guitars. An example would be the use of Carbon Fibre reinforcement and composite materials as bracing or as alternatives to wooden parts. As traditional materials become more scarce and expensive, we can expect to see new guitars designed to take advantage of new materials as they’re developed.

The Second Third Sentence

The process of innovation shouldn’t be an end in itself, at least according to the principle. Another way to put it is “Don’t do it just because you can.” If the innovation doesn’t make something better, just different, then it really can’t be considered to be a good overall design.

Let’s consider the example of RKS Guitars, as unfair as it may be to pick on them. They developed a line of electric guitars designed and manufactured using modern 3D technologies. This could legitimately be considered as an innovation in electric guitar design. They were, in my opinion, very attractive and I’m sure that they played just fine. I always wondered, though, if they were really any better than other instruments at competitive price points. Was it just a case of designing something in a way simply because they could?

RKS Ruby Red guitar, style over substance?

But what about unintended consequences of a particular design? You don’t always know how something is going to get used until it’s out there in the hands of players. Guitar amplifier designers learned this when players discovered the joys of distortion. There may be some value in applying a particular innovation to guitar design and seeing what becomes of it.

SG Special Humbucker Electric Guitar, Dark Walnut version, also available in Cherry or Worn Brown

Judging by the construction of the SG Humbucker Dark Walnut, it’s clear to see why it was so well suited to rock music. It’s slim line, almost aerodynamic, solid mahogany body means ultimate playability and full access to all frets without obstruction. The body is paired with a mahogany set neck and baked maple fingerboard, which again allows you to take full advantage of the neck and allows you to play solos that you can’t play on any old guitar. In addition to this the neck has an ergonomic 50’s profile, which feels great in your hands and allows you to do chording work more naturally. So this is then arguably the ideal construction balance, although that’s a pretty bold statement.

Gibson SG Special Humbucker sleek profile

You’ll notice at first glance that it’s a visually simple yet beautiful guitar. The headstock just has the Gibson logo, an unbound fingerboard with dot inlays. So it’s not exactly feature rich but it’s this design that makes it so appealing to me, especially with its transparent satin nitrocellulose finish which makes it look really raw and retro. There are also two benefits with this; good ol’ fashioned wear and tear will actually improve the condition and is expected to keep, or improve on its original value. Which brings me neatly to the other positive; apparently for every unnecessary feature they have removed, Gibson have reduced the total price of the guitar. Making the SG Special Humbucker one of the cheapest full-spec American built SGs ever sold.

Now to the most important bit, the way it sounds and you’ll be glad to know there’s been nothing sacrificed for price in this department. It has two modern classic humbuckers with a 490T model and a 490R at the neck, inside of which lies an Alnico II magnet, which gives the SG Dark Walnut a surprisingly high, singing tone. But of course it is still capable of the thick high-gain output offering a perfect spectrum of tone, especially for rock music. I was very impressed when I heard the versatility of this guitar and its no wonder why some of the most talented guitarist ever seen chose to use them.

The back of the headstock and neck from the Dark Walnut Gibson SG Special Humbucker

For such a quality guitar it’s hard to understand why the SG Special Humbucker is priced so cheaply, but lets just thank Gibson that they are. For a guitar that looks and sounds amazing, will retain its value and will get better as time goes on, in my opinion it’s the most exciting guitar released this year.

The Lesocaster mock-up, probably my favourite of the two illegitimate children

The best guitar you can’t buy

If a company were to blend the best of the Stratocaster and Les Paul into one guitar many would consider that to be the ultimate in electric guitar design. However it can’t really be done officially as the two guitar makers are not, any time soon, going to get into bed together. You also won’t be buying Pepsi Coca Cola any time soon but likewise you can make it for yourself. Just put two cans in a big cup, or if you’re less ambitious two half cans in a regular cup. This also works for the guitar, sort of… You can make the guitar for yourself! You can also write Lesocater (or Stratpaul) on it. Just don’t try to sell it, nothing good will come of that.

The magic formula for making a Lesocaster (and Stratpaul)

Above you can see the result of my musings and mixing of Pepsi/Coca Cola one day. The outline drawings have 3 degree slants but the illustrations have 5 degree slants, so they look a little bit different. I think perhaps 4 degrees is Goldilocks…

A hybrid Stratocaster and Les Paul design and encapsulating some of the sound properties of those classics would really be a great feat. In actuality I have messed around with a few strats and tried to get more Les Paul style sounds with various humbuckers but it’s never really got there. The worst sounding attempt was using the Seymour Duncan Little 59. I’m pretty happy with HSS Stratocasters of various types and flavours, they are so flexible, I love the neck single coil and bridge humbucker config. So this hybrid has adopted that scheme.

The Stratpaul, not photorealistic but gives you an idea of the look, picture it with a flame top?

I don’t know if many people are in the same position as me; I don’t have much room for guitars on my wall, just 3 and a bass. I like to have variety on the wall but I also like to have as many sounds as possible in one guitar so I think a Hybrid electric guitar is a winner. I’d also really like to have a piezo bridge pickup on it for a passable electric acoustic sound, why not?

Anyway I hope some people like the shapes of these guitars and perhaps even make one of them. If you want, get in touch and I can send you the outlines as a scalable vector EPS or PDF. Combine it with one of the original headstock designs I’ve made previously here, or here and I think you could have a cracking guitar in your hands after a bit of work. The Lesocaster and the Lazy Book headstock would be extremely cool I think. Please anyone, except for Michael, leave any comments or questions below.

This is a question that you could ask about practically every mistake ever made. Nobody ever gets up in the morning and asks themselves “what can I screw up today?” All mistakes start with good intentions, and this case was certainly no exception.

I was in the process of designing my first archtop acoustic guitar, using the Benedetto book
as a guide. The usual truss rod configuration for these is a single or double action truss rod with the adjusting nut located at the peghead. Since I prefer to not have the adjusting nut cavity at the thin transitional area between the peghead and neck, I mentally designed an implementation where it could be on the body end instead.

THE PLAN

My approach was to adapt the Cumpiano-style single action rod with a threaded brass spacer as the adjusting nut, just as I’d used on acoustic and electric guitars designs done previously. This design had proven to be effective, and fabricating the rods was an enjoyable process involving fire and simple hand tools.

The threaded brass spacers I had were about 3/8” across and about 3/4” long. Again, this is typical for this design. The cap for the rod was done using the updated design shown on Cumpiano’s website rather than the one in his book. I figured I’d have enough room on the bottom of the fingerboard extension to accommodate the nut and whatever socket would be required to adjust it.

To prevent the transitional fingerboard “hump” at the neck/body join, I planned to install a couple of graphite reinforcement bars alongside the rod. That part worked out well. The installation of the rods was easy, there was plenty of room left for the rod and adjusting nut, and the neck is dead straight at the body join.

WHERE IT WENT WRONG

New adjustment nut and fingerboard extension geometry

Had the guitar consisted of just the neck and fingerboard, there would have been no problem. However, the rod sits in a channel about 1/2” deep in the neck, and the typical fingerboard extension starts out at a 1/2” to begin with. I could make the slot a bit shallower, but the rod would still make the extension thickness more than what I’d like. By this point in the construction, I’d already cut the dovetail on the neck heel and the body mortise, so changing the neck angle was going to be a great deal of work.

The too-thick Fingerboard Extension

With the fingerboard thickness such as it was, it required the bridge height to be increased. The typical height for an archtop bridge is about 1”, and the saddle height partially dictates the break angle on the strings after they cross the saddle. That in turn changes the downforce on the top and changes the tonal characteristics of the acoustic body. To make things worse, the top was carved from 3/4” thick plates instead of the usual 1”, so this additional height was on top of the 1/4” already added to the bridge saddle. This was really going to push hard into the top.

The saddle height is adjustable to a degree using the thumbwheel adjusters, but asking it to make up the entire height difference was too much. It would look ridiculous to have both wood pieces separated by a huge gap, resting on two overextended bridge posts. The quick fix for this was to route the top of the saddle for a piece of Corian, similar to what is used on a flattop acoustic guitar. This looked goofy, too, but it got the job done and sounded OK.

Bridge with Corian Saddle

While there was just enough room for a socket to adjust the truss rod nut, it was awkward to get it in there with the guitar strung up. To make things worse, the rod bends when the nut is tightened, which it’s supposed to do. However, when it’s tightened to counteract the string tension, the resulting bending force pushes the threaded brass spacer into the top of the guitar. Besides being really ugly, it damages the top, and I’m sure it’s damping the movement of the top and hurting the tone/volume of the guitar.

Damage to the top from the previous adjustment nut

LESSONS LEARNED

Usually things are the way they are for a reason. It’s easy now to see why there aren’t many acoustic archtop guitars out there that feature a body end truss rod adjustment. Some of the problems I ran into could be minimized by using a different adjusting nut such as a “spoke” nut and a shallower channel, reducing the neck angle, or mortising the top of the guitar a bit to accommodate the fingerboard extension like a tenon. The easiest design fix, though, is to stick with the traditional headstock adjustment for the rod and be done with it. There were no problems with using the carbon fibre reinforcement bars, so that element could stay in the design.

After this incident, I tend to do a whole lot more visualization in detail to make sure things are going to look and work correctly before building. If it’s an unusual design element or feature, I’ll definitely get more detailed in the drawings.

Another thing I try to do more of is to visualize the physical forces working on the design elements, even if it’s just conceptual. I hadn’t considered the way that the truss rod would bend when the threaded brass spacer adjustment nut was tightened, but it’s a mistake that I could have avoided by just thinking about how the adjustments were going to be made and what would happen when they were done. The same thinking applies to other areas of the guitar that are under tension, load, stress, etc.

POSSIBLE FIXES

Of course, the best fix is to prevent the problem in the first place. Using the traditional headstock adjustment or a spoke nut short of the body join would both be viable design choices. Reducing the neck angle is another. Since the guitar was already assembled and finished by the time I had to deal with the problem, I was left with two options. One was more practical than the other.

The first was to remove the threaded brass spacer and replace it with a more traditional truss rod adjustment nut. These have a hex socket in one end and threads on the other. This proved to be easy enough to adjust with strings on the guitar, and since it’s diameter was less it didn’t foul the top of the guitar when tightened. The bridge was fitted with a Corian saddle as mentioned earlier.

The alternative was to reverse the orientation of the truss rod or shorten the rod and use a spoke nut short of the body join, thin and refit the fingerboard extension, and fabricate a new saddle. This would be much more involved and require enough work to make one consider building a whole new guitar as an attractive solution. The modification steps would look something like this:

• Remove Neck
• Remove Frets and fingerboard, leaving references for reattachment
• Remove Truss Rod and Cap strip
• Extend channel to peghead
• Route adjustment channel, careful not to go too thin at peghead
• Fill unused truss rod channel and adjustment channel under fingerboard extension
• Reverse and reinstall the truss rod and cap strip
• Design, fabricate, and attach truss rod cover
• Reattach fingerboard, true up and radius the surface if necessary
• Re-fret, true, and dress frets
• Thin and refit fingerboard extension
• Shorten heel and dovetail to suit
• Mark fingerboard extension
• Trim and fit extension
• Glue neck
• Check projected bridge height, refit if necessary
• Fabricate new Saddle

WRAP UP

This is just one example where a mistake made with just one design element can have systematic consequences for other parts of the guitar. The problem in this case was not just a cosmetic issue, but also negatively affected the tone of the guitar and it’s long-term health because of the added downforce on the top. The guitar is playable, even with these problems along with others that naturally come with being the first of a particular type of instrument that anybody makes, so it’s not a total loss. It does, however, illustrate the importance of visualizing before cutting wood.

Article written by Paul Buerk, who has a new book about designing electric guitars, without anything going bad! Please leave any comments of questions for the author below.

Vintage V100 one-piece sunburst top

I’ve owned a couple of Les Paul type guitars in the past and I didn’t have one at this time, so I wanted something with some beef available to me to play rock and distorted sounds upon. I’ve played this guitar quite a bit now and I’m happy it fills it’s role well. I prefer it’s distorted and overdriven bridge sounds to that of my hand made Parts-a-caster with humbucker. Also I find the neck position is brighter and more usable, to me, than those neck positions in the Tokai LS85 (Japanese) and Epiphone Les Paul Custom (Korean) models I have owned previously. Talking to Mike, at Gemini Pickups, he spoke of the Vintage V100 sounds as being somewhere between those of a Les Paul and an SG rather than just a clone of it’s obvious influence – the Les Paul.

The current specs of the V100 models are as follows;

Body: Mahogany
Top: Solid Carved Mahogany (GT/ WR/ TSB/ BB/ AW)
Flame Maple Veneer (HB/ CS/  IT)
Neck: Mahogany – Set Neck
Fingerboard: Rosewood, Scale: 24.75″/ 628mm, Frets: 22
Neck Inlays: Pearloid Crown
Tuners: Wilkinson® Deluxe WJ44 Chrome (GT/ CS), Gold (TSB/ BB/ WR/ GDL)
Bridge: Tune-O-Matic
Pickups: V100TSB/BB/CS Wilkinson® Double Coil x 2
Hardware: Chrome (GT/ CS) Gold (TSB/ BB/ WR/ GDL)
Controls: 2 x Volume/ 2 x Tone/ 3-Way Toggle

I’ve said current specs because, the above don’t seem to tally with my own example. For instance I think I have a Tobacco Sunburst model but the top looks like a piece of wavy maple to me. Also the top is one piece, there is no join, it’s definitely a continuous slice of wood. Also because the back was badly scratched I decided to sand it down, I kept going, and going, and going and got to the mahogany, it was originally a pretty uniform brown gravy colour. As you see in the picture the back also seems to be a single piece of mahogany! That’s a bit of a surprise and a shame it was covered so thickly with the treacle coloured varnish.

Vintage V100 one piece back

I’ve read in various places that these guitars are made in Vietnam, though there is hardly any sign of serial numbers, model or any manufacturing data anywhere on the guitar. The pickups are supposed to be of a design imparted by the original Gibson PAF designer Seth Lover to Mr Trev Wilkinson of Vintage. They couldn’t say that if it wasn’t true, I think these pickups will be staying in the guitar unless I have some test pickups come in that would be comparable in nature. If I think they are a bit bright I can always use the tone control on my amp!

I managed to get a replacement machinehead from Peterborough Music, which is an excellent, friendly and helpful guitar shop. It’s easy to find near Peterborough Market in the city centre and they have an online store and blog etc. Now I’ve got the new machinehead and don’t have to tune up using a pair of pliers I have got round to changing the strings to a heavier gauge (I think it had some 9′s on, felt too much like little elastic bands). This has broadened the tone and, as always, new strings just ring out and twang so much nicer. The new machinehead is also a Wilkinson, matching design, but I asked for chrome, forgetting I had a gold set!

I’ve also fixed up the guitar action a bit, lowering it and adjusting a couple of frets with some files to remove fret buzz. I’m happy with that now but I feel that the fret ends, whilst polished and smoothed nicely are a little bit square in profile for my taste. I definitely feel it’s noticeably notchy compared to my other guitars so I might have to get my files out again to make them less square and more round. With these mass produced lower price bracket guitars you should be prepared to do a bit more work to make them fit your own preferences. For the pickups I’ve lowered them a little bit in their mounts but heightened some of the pole pieces to fit my chord work. For my bridge pickup the main adjustment is that the A string pole piece is the tallest, I like it that way for riffing about with power chords.

Vintage V100 frets, square-ish end profile

The cosmetic finish was very good on the guitar, all the blemishes were caused by the previous owner! I am very happy with the top and back and the mother of pearl inlay in the headstock is wonderfully refractive. I’ve had the control plates off the back, when I was sandpapering etc, the electronics seemed tidy with 500k pots. The pots themselves seemed to be half the diameter of any I’ve seen and installed myself which was a bit of a surprise again. Though I have no issues with the workings of the volumes and tones, they are as good as any other analogue controls I’ve used on a passive guitar before. Another thing I had to do was file a scratchy little plastic node off the pickup selector switch! I’ve read that someone else did this on their V100. Took about half a minute to smooth it, indivisibly improved, but feels better now!

Overall I think this guitar is a very fine player, it’s filling in the position of classic rock guitar in my modest collection. It does indeed feel less refined or sophisticated than the Tokai LS85 I had (that cost lots more $£$). It’s hard to say exactly what that difference is but I think it’s probably a lot of small differences adding up. Mainly I would say if I cut the nut a little more and filed those fret ends to a more rounded profile I’d start to feel this guitar has more panache than it does right now. I’m going to do that and I’ll let you know if it gets there. If it doesn’t that may be more my fault than the guitar’s though!

Vintage V100 front view

So if you’re hankering for a Les Paul a-like then I’d definitely give a Vintage V100 a go. As with all guitars you can pick up several of the same model off a shop wall and they will all give a little different feeling, so it’s good to go to the store to buy if you can.

Let me know what you think of your V100!

Alembic wood covered pickups, report if you see this guitar, it is stolen! Click picture for info.

The frequencies that are available as fundamental notes on a guitar range from around 80 cycles per second (0.08KHz) to around 1.3Khz. Most pickups have a resonant peak somewhere between 2 and 3 octaves above the fundamental frequencies. The resonant peak is the frequency at which the pickup is most efficient. The degree of variation is quite high.

Pickups can transduce some frequencies 2 or 3 times more efficiently than others. The higher notes on your guitar are not as “loud” mechanically. Although when playing a high note, the string vibrates at a higher frequency, it has less mass. The strength of current induced in a pickup depends on the mass and velocity of metal moving through the pickups magnetic field. The pickups correct this. Pickups transduce with increasing efficiency as frequency increases up to their resonant peak which is always above the highest fundamental note of the guitar.

Each pickup has a frequency response curve in a generally similar form.

The blue line might be typical for a vintage style humbucker while the red line would represent a hot wound humbucker using a fine gauge of wire.

Pickups do not sustain. However, a pickups that emphasises the frequencies in a suitable range that includes the fundamental note played and one octave above (the strongest natural harmonic) will tend to encourage harmonic feedback, leading to the much prized endless sustain.

Sometimes pickups are described as being harmonically rich. While it is in a technical sense perhaps misleading, at a practical level it works. These are generally pickups that have a reasonably strong response across the mid range and hopefully at least one octave above. This means that they reproduce the most desirable harmonics (3rd, 5th, octave above) fairly strongly across the entire range of notes.

Humbucker pickup design, nicely aged in this example

Pickups do not directly affect the attack of a note. They do affect it indirectly. As higher frequencies naturally have a stronger attack, pickups that emphasise high frequencies more will increase attack.

I hope this introductory article to guitar pickups and how they work in an electric guitar is a little illuminating to readers. In the following articles about electric guitar pickups we will be looking at actual pickups and sounds and comparisons in the real world which will help people decide which are the best pickups for their guitar for the sounds and tones they wish to create.

Part 1 of The Tone Chain, is here. Followed by Part 2 of the Tone Chain, you are reading Part 3…

Article written by Mike Rose of Gemini Pickups. Please leave any comments and queries below!

Other elements of the tone chain do not introduce new harmonics. However they do emphasise some frequencies by transducing or amplifying them more efficiently. Guitars resonate in sympathy with the string vibrations. Any guitar will resonate more in response to some frequencies than others. Guitars do not generally introduce new frequencies although they do emphasise some frequencies more than others. Resonant vibrations have properties of attack, sustain and decay just as string vibrations do. The variation depends on the entire guitar design and construction. Some examples are well known e.g. That maple has a brighter sound than mahogany.

A spalted maple top is quite nice on a Les Paul, or most other guitars

In an acoustic guitar, the sound waves generated by string movement are too weak to be heard. The sound waves created by the guitar resonating are effectively the entirety of the sound you hear. Not surprisingly, design, material selection and construction is absolutely crucial for acoustic guitar tone.

For electric guitars, the situation is very different. Magnetic pickups sense movement of the strings within their magnetic field. They don’t sense anything else. Any sound waves created by the guitar vibrating are not sensed and do not form part of the final sound.

When a string vibrates, some of the energy is transferred mechanically to the guitar. The guitar then vibrates but with varying amplitude depending on frequency. You can sometimes feel solid body guitars vibrating and also feel that they vibrate a lot less than the string does. The pickup will sense movement of the guitar relative to the string but the amplitude of this movement is very small.

How much energy is transferred to the guitar depends primarily on the rigidity of the strings and guitar. Guitars are very stiff compared to strings. As solid guitars are far more rigid than hollow guitars, much less energy is transferred. Some of the energy transferred to the guitar is lost via friction and some is transferred back to the strings. The energy transfers are continuous until all vibration finally stops. Because of it’s greater size and mass, the guitar loses energy more rapidly than the string.

The conclusion from this is that while exactly the same rules apply to the effects of guitar design and construction for tone in acoustic and electric guitars, the results are very different. The guitar contributes almost 100% of acoustic tone but only a small proportion of electric guitar tone.

It definitely does happen even if the extent is limited. If you play solid bodied guitars acoustically, they don’t all sound the same. You can hear the difference between a Strat with a maple board and one with a rosewood board, a Strat with humbuckers doesn’t sound exactly like a Les Paul.

Natural sustain is entirely mechanical, coming only from the strings and the guitar before the pickup converts the mechanical energy into an electrical signal. It can be enhanced, for example by using vibrato.

Mandolin and Acoustic Guitar by Picasso, which is which?

The contribution of the guitar to sustain is negative. Guitars reduce sustain. When the guitar resonates, there is some loss of energy. Just as there is in string vibrations. If the guitar was totally rigid (big block of concrete with strings on it) energy transfer to the guitar and subsequent loss would me minimised, thus achieving maximum natural sustain. The more energy that is transferred to the guitar, the greater the energy losses and the faster the decay.

This is actually fairly obvious. Acoustic guitars resonate very strongly and offer less sustain. Solid bodied electrics resonate less and offer more sustain. Better guitars do not enhance sustain, they just reduce sustain less than bad guitars.

Another important conclusion is that maximising sustain (by making the guitar more rigid) reduces the extent of tonal colouring by the guitar.

Quiet practice amp, made by Laney

Amplifiers

Additional harmonics can be introduced mechanically or electrically during the time your note is in electrical form. Many effects do this and most importantly, overdriven amplifiers do it.

Amplifiers have a primary function of increasing voltage while retaining the same mixture of frequencies transmitted to them from the pickup. They have a secondary function of emphasising certain frequencies (or frequency bands) in ways that are hopefully pleasing. In other words, amplifiers also have a frequency response curve. This can be modified to some degree by adjusting the tone controls. These are usually quite limited but adequate for the job while still being understandable.

The third function of most amplifiers started by accident but has become a key ingredient of electric guitar tone. When overdriven amplifiers receive signals (from previous amplification stages) whose amplitudes cannot be amplified again in the current stage without exceeding it’s maximum output level. This causes a portion of the signal to be limited (or clipped). The clipping occurs at a frequency related to each note (or harmonic). Thus an overdriven amplifier adds new harmonic content to the sound.

Amplifiers also introduce compression into the sound when overdriven. This has a profound effect on sustain as once you have compression all input signals above a given volume level will be amplified to the same output volume.

High levels of gain and their associated high levels of compression make it possible to produce infinite sustain at low levels of volume. Infinite sustain of clean sounds requires very high levels of volume.

Speakers

Speakers, like pickups, generally do not introduce new harmonic content. They can do so if they are of inadequate capacity but the results are difficult to control, often unpleasant and expensive as this can easily destroy the speaker cones.

Vox "blue" speakers

Speakers do, however, further colour the tone by having a frequency response curve which produces more volume for some frequencies more than others given the same signal strength in.

Part 1 of The Tone Chain, is here. Or continue to the next article: The Tone Chain, Part 3 – Guitar Pickups.

Article written by Mike Rose of Gemini Pickups. Please leave any comments and queries below!

On with the review and the specs of what I used to listen to the differences;

• Vintage V100, with stock Wilkinson Alnico Humbuckers and old strings which I should have changed by now.
• All distortion tones tested with guitar volume and tone on full, bridge pickup.
• All distortion boxes set to about 2 o’clock, tone at 12 noon and the volume/level to balance the clean amp.
• Weather was cold, playing was rusty, more or less similar chords/riffs for consistency
• Clean Blackheart Little Giant 3 watt mode – beginning of video.
• Vox Satchurator – 53 seconds
• Zoom “Dist +” (MXR Distortion+) – 2.15
• Zoom “Dist 1” (Boss DS-1) – 3.27
• Zoom “Great Muff” (EHX Big Muff) – 4.29
• Zoom “HotBox” (Matchless Hotbox) – 5.46
• Zoom “MetalWorld” (Boss Metal Zone) – 7 minutes

So I’m testing everything here with “affordable” kit. First up the clean sounds of this Blackheart Little Giant combo are very nice but it’s a simple amp with no master volume or gain controls so you need some kind of pre-amp, overdrive or distortion for hard rock sounds at bedroom friendly volumes.

Some distortions suited different passages in the music better than others. You can hear the tone bias of most of the distortions are quite different. The MetalWorld had a lot of mid and treble where the HotBox sounded muddy in the recording here, that sound isn’t a distortion, rather an overdrive/preamp kind of effect, I think it’s suited less to the jangly chord playing and you have to stick to the power chords of 3 notes or less and single note passages. In that area it sounds great IMHO.

More about the Vox Satchurator

Looking at the Vox Satchurator in particular it’s got a very nice tone and the six strings all rang clearly and distinctly which is a great quality in a distortion effect. It’s quite configurable with the three controls. The Gain has a very workable range, the lower and higher settings are all useful sounding and the middle setting was used in the video above. The “More” button lets you have more Gain. If the gain is not set at full already then it boosts the gain value up to full. If the Gain is set at maximum already then the “More” foot-pedal switch will turn it to “11″

Vox Satchurator made in Japan quality

I used the tone set at the middle setting on the Vox Satchurator distortion and all the Zoom distortion pedal simulations, you have to put limits on your testing and comparisons! The tone on the Vox works just as you thought it would; as an EQ that darkens the sound or brightens things up, depending which way you turn it.

Vox Satchurator, sturdy red box of distortion

The level control lets you adjust the volume level of the pedal output, also as usual. Slightly unusual is the little switch labelled “pad”, it changes the way the distortion sounds subtly which makes it work better with trebly pickups or wah effects.

Overall the Vox Satchurator is a very versatile and musical sounding distortion pedal. I like how it’s got a smoothness and more sustain than other distortions I’ve tried before. The More switch is a great extra, everyone wants more sometimes! Great flexibility and it’s well built too.

Back to Zoom G3 comparisons

In comparing with the Zoom G3 I didn’t try and replicate the Vox Satchurator sound. As you can see I left all the tone controls and gain controls at 50% and 60% respectively. Some of the pedals were very close, even so – the “Dist 1” sounded a lot like the Vox to my ears which surprised me, like I said above I never liked the actual Boss DS1 that I had for a short while. The “Great Muff” might have been able to be tweaked to be more like the Vox Satchurator too, it was just a little darker at the given settings. If you have a Zoom G3 pedal it’s easy to get the more setting too. There’s the optional Zoom expression pedal (I got one for £18, used) that can control the gain setting on the distortions. Also you can put several distortion, boost and overdrives in the virtual chain you have. In fact, I’ve seen someone ask this before but never saw the answer, you can have 3 identical distortion pedals in a row if you like, all with different or any settings you like and then with the expression pedal to give you more… crazy.

I have actually tried 3 distortions at once on the G3, when I made a patch of several different sounding overdrives to compare. There are several more distortion and overdrive effects on the Zoom G3, perhaps I will try and copy the Vox Satchurator sound more precisely another day.

Zoom G3 in action

That’s it for now. I might do one more article about the Zoom G3 and the optional expression pedal, it’s a very good addition to this box of tricks and magic! At the time of my original review of the Zoom G3 I had no expression pedal and now I have more experience of the settings on the unit itself.

telebration; 52, redwood, empress, 75

That’s not a very satisfactory way of doing things so I thought I would gather here all the pictures of all the models that were made available. There were 12 models in all, I thought I’d found 13 but it seemed like while many of them were available in only one colour/finish a few of the models actually had a choice of finish/colour.

As Fender themselves said; these are all original guitars designed within the Telecaster shape. So we have lots of different woods on show here, quite a wide variety, a lot of them you don’t often see in guitars. So it was great to see the Fender Telebration models made of pine and bamboo (bamboo sandwiching alder). While those two woods are rare in guitar construction others are rare in Telecaster construction like the mahogany body Telecaster and the Rosewood/Spruce laminate version. Another unusual wood used in this series of guitars is that of the Empress Tree, which is a particularly light tonewood used traditionally in construction of the Japanese Koto. The Empress Telecaster is available in two colours – honeyburst and white. Personally I like my guitars heavy, lightness isn’t something I look for when perusing the guitar emporiums.

telebration; rosewood, mahogany, lamboo, 62

As well as the woods there are a lot of pickup variations on offer which I assume were chosen to combine well and offer a good variety of sounds from this famous tone machine. Among the usual suspects of vintage and hot single coils we have a couple of humbuckers in the mix, sometimes in the neck or in the bridge position. The Cabronita version looks very different; only it seems that the body shape remains, the control plate, bridge, scratchplate and pickups are all uncharacteristically Telecaster. The TV Jones pickups are supposed to be a good combination in this model according to several discussion forums.

telebration; cabronita, pine, modern, flame

My choice

My favourite models I think would be the Telebration Cabronita or the Mahogany version for rock tones. The others are similar to Teles you can buy any year… If I had to choose my least favourite it would be the Old Pine model. Here is a marketing quote that is supposed to stir you up or inspire you or something?; “This Tele is made from Old Pine salvaged from a barn over 100 years old in Indiana.” Just think – IKEA was founded nearly 70 years ago, Fender could’ve made a Swedish pine Telebration model What are your favourite and least favourite variations? Please leave a comment below!