# WIP: My first guitar... Walnut Strat



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

Hello all:

I'm not much of a guitar player anymore. Not enough time to dedicate to playing. But I still love woodworking. 

I had an old Squier Strat laying around, so I tore her down for parts and templates. Decided to create a new custom stratocaster. 

I'll be using the old neck on this new body. I bought all new electronics and pickguard (H90 single coil pickups). The body is scrap wood I had laying around. It's walnut with a maple back. I used maple on the back to help with the darker tone that the walnut will impart (also, that's why I chose the H90 pickups).

She's almost done. Still need to cut the rib contour, install the hardtail bridge and drill the mounting holes for the neck.


----------



## difalkner (Nov 27, 2011)

Nice! Got any more photos? What finish will you apply?


----------



## jspadaro (Mar 20, 2015)

That looks awesome.


----------



## RogerC (Oct 15, 2012)

Did you do any chambering to help with the weight? 

And I know this is a whole other can of worms, but why do you think the walnut will impart a dark tone and that the maple will brighten it up? The strings oscillate between the nut and bridge with a magnetic field placed to translate the oscillations into electric current that then flows through a bunch of electronics and out through a speaker.

I know the "tonewood" debate has been raging forever, but I always caution folks to not fall prey to the internet babble that gets tossed out as gospel on every guitar forum or in every picking circle out there. :thumbsup:


----------



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

No chambering. Thought about it, but decided to keep the first build simple. 

As far as tone wood, well, I know that a tone played at a certain frequency sounds different from a violin than a piano. Even though the air vibrates at the same hz the timbre is different. I believe that the density and whatnot of a tone wood can affect the timbre of a guitar. Maybe is the way vibrations do or don't get fed back into the string. I don't know. 

Maybe is just had scrap maple and walnut and needed a justification to use them. 

We'll see how she sounds.


----------



## TonyVT (Mar 17, 2015)

I cant wait to see it complete!


----------



## new2woodwrk (Mar 16, 2015)

Wow, great job - impressive - can't wait to see the next phase photos


----------



## MrZ2u (Feb 1, 2015)

RogerC said:


> Did you do any chambering to help with the weight?
> 
> And I know this is a whole other can of worms, but why do you think the walnut will impart a dark tone and that the maple will brighten it up? The strings oscillate between the nut and bridge with a magnetic field placed to translate the oscillations into electric current that then flows through a bunch of electronics and out through a speaker.
> 
> I know the "tonewood" debate has been raging forever, but I always caution folks to not fall prey to the internet babble that gets tossed out as gospel on every guitar forum or in every picking circle out there. :thumbsup:


Oh crap man...you have stepped in it now 



MidKnight said:


> No chambering. Thought about it, but decided to keep the first build simple.
> 
> As far as tone wood, well, I know that a tone played at a certain frequency sounds different from a violin than a piano. Even though the air vibrates at the same hz the timbre is different. I believe that the density and whatnot of a tone wood can affect the timbre of a guitar. Maybe is the way vibrations do or don't get fed back into the string. I don't know.
> 
> ...


On an acoustic instrument the tone of the wood absolutely makes a difference...on a solid body electric like you built and I build it makes none that can be heard thru the amp...of course this is my opinion...but I am right:yes: 

Its about the electonics. Those are not microphones there...they are transducers and as such they are not going to 'hear' those tonal characteristics of particular woods. In your case, having two very differrent sounding wood glued together lock it all up anyway...especially when you bolt on a hard maple neck. 

Strats have their sound because of their traditional 3 singles and bolted on neck. Les Pauls have their sound because of the humbuckers and set neck. 

More than anything on solid body electrics the wood and construction is about sustain and stability. I'd have to dig for it but there was link in one of the luthier forums to a non youtube video of this cat who made guitar out of baltic birch plywood to include the fretboard. Had his pickups switchable from humbucker to single to fat single and playing though one amp without touching anything but the settings on the guitars electronics was able to go from that typical bright Strat sound to the twangy Tele to the fat war Les Paul. From a guitar made entirely of plywood.

Throw some modeling tech between the guitar and amp and you have endless possibilities.

Even on bass which is primarily what I build the tonal characteristics of any particular wood dont come into play. 

Build it out of a good stable wood down the middle and then cap it with what ever LOOKS good to you. 

My next personal project is either a "Strat' with a neck thru configuration with this really flamed piece of cherry as a top or maybe a 6 string bass...cause I need one of those cause thats all that keeps me from achieving the Les Claypool sound 

Thinking of walnut on the bass, at least right now...was going to give it a tobacco/redish dye with oil finish I think. Want to give it a rich chocolate with a candy coat kind of vibe


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*slightly off the subject.....*

I just picked up my new guitar. Not a solid body, not a wood acoustic, but a steel resonator. I traded a new /unused woodworking machine for one of these:

http://muleresophonic.com/

Go to the left hand side "hear a Mule" and see what you think. It looks old as 1930's but was made last week. I supplied the Honduran Rosewood for the neck and fret board on mine. I was able to jump to the front of the 2 year long waiting list as part of the trade. Compared to my other steel guitar this one is louder, more round but a real raw sound. I love it. :yes:


----------



## RogerC (Oct 15, 2012)

MrZ2u said:


> Oh crap man...you have stepped in it now
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:

I've built guitars from everything from 100 year old barn wood to baseball bats to concrete (if anyone would like to see pics, just pm me so I don't hi-jack this thread any farther), so the whole "tonewood" debate is a bit of a thing with me :laughing:

I'd even go so far as to say that the set neck vs. bolt-on is even a bit of a fallacy. When you look at an LP vs. a strat, the main difference (besides pickups) is scale length-- 24.75" vs. 25.5". Next is neck material. This is the only place where, I believe, the wood has a chance to make a difference.

From your bass builds, I'm sure you've seen cases where certain necks just don't cut it.

Anyway, back on topic about the OP's guitar. It is a great looking instrument. Walnut is definitely one of my favorite woods. I'll be interested to hear what the final weight is on this one once you get it all buttoned up.


----------



## peridigm (Dec 29, 2014)

Looks nice. My first guitar was a Peavey natural mahogany. Got it when I was twelve. I recently restored it and got the idea to build a matching bass. Always wanted to build a guitar too. These guitar threads are great.


----------



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

RogerC said:


> Anyway, back on topic about the OP's guitar. It is a great looking instrument. Walnut is definitely one of my favorite woods. I'll be interested to hear what the final weight is on this one once you get it all buttoned up.


Well, I weighed just the body and it was 6 pounds, almost on the nose. Not a feather weight.

Edit: I still need to cut the rib contour, so it'll shed a few ounces.


----------



## MrZ2u (Feb 1, 2015)

RogerC said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> I'd even go so far as to say that the set neck vs. bolt-on is even a bit of a fallacy. When you look at an LP vs. a strat, the main difference (besides pickups) is scale length-- 24.75" vs. 25.5". Next is neck material. This is the only place where, I believe, the wood has a chance to make a difference.
> 
> From your bass builds, I'm sure you've seen cases where certain necks just don't cut it.


There is some physics to the neck joint. Many links that died with a hard drive otherwise I'd have them handy to post  but I had read an interesting study from some physics department masters thesis kind of thing. Very much separated from the guitar itself they made three 34 scale bass 'necks' from nut to bridge, one bolt on, one set and one neck-thru (solid, not a laminate). In that order they determined that the bolt on had the least least sustain, next most was set and then the neck-thru with the most sustain. Unfortunately they didnt test any wood but hard maple which I suppose is enough to prove the physics. Fender is Maple bolted to Ash or Alder generally(except on squire), Gibsons are Mahogany glued to Mahogany and i have never seen a neck-thru that was not laminated at least by two boards. All in all, I think the neck question is mostly if not completely about sustain. Then one could argue do you even need the extra sustain afforded by the different configurations because a properly set up bolt on has plenty!

The most important thing about the neck wood is that it be as stable as possible. Beyond that I think its purely subjective. If I had time and money I would love to replicate that study with different woods and then make controled recordings of each acoustically and then with the same pickup/amp to see if there are any perceptible differences. Even if that proved out via blind study that there was no 'tone wood' differences in solid body electrics I am sure the debate would still rage  



MidKnight said:


> Well, I weighed just the body and it was 6 pounds, almost on the nose. Not a feather weight.
> 
> Edit: I still need to cut the rib contour, so it'll shed a few ounces.


I build a bass from Bloodwood, Wenge and Maple (hard) and I expected it to be a back breaker. Its definitely heavy but not nearly as much as I expected. looks like you have the heal cut already...you say 'rib'...I assume you mean the part on the back that meets your belly? I get pretty aggressive there so you might loose a fair bit.

Cant see how much you hogged out behind the pick guard but you can definitely take out a few oz back there if you just cut the space for the pickups like Fender does. I wouldnt hollow out the whole area but a forstner bit and drill press might help bring the weight down a fair bit with a hole here and there. For that matter...you putting a tremolo on that one? If so that will also drop a fair bit of weight. 

Hell, now I want to go weigh the bass I just mentioned...dont think I ever did that. Not that it matters in the least but I am curious


----------



## gomez11811 (Jul 29, 2012)

Love the grain on that chunk of wood, hope it sounds as good as it looks....


----------



## Travico (Dec 25, 2012)

Looks like a nice build going on. I would be lost in building musical instruments!!


----------



## Masterjer (Nov 6, 2012)

That's going to be a great looking guitar. Can't wait to see it finished.


----------



## Metz12 (Feb 13, 2015)

That looks great! One of my favorite wood combos is walnut and maple! cant wait to see it done!


----------



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

Sanded her 80, 120 and 150 grit tonight. Wiped it down with mineral spirits. Below are the results. 

I won't be able to get any work in until after the weekend... My twins are turning three.


----------



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

Oh, and here's a shot just after cutting the body contour. I should have taken more. I guess I still could...


----------



## MrZ2u (Feb 1, 2015)

How thick is that body? Looks like quite a bit thicker than stock in that last picture...


----------



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

MrZ2u said:


> How thick is that body? Looks like quite a bit thicker than stock in that last picture...


My Squier that I'm using as a template is 1.75 and this one is 1/16 of an inch thicker. So, yeah, I didn't take it down as much as I should have. I'm learning a ton doing this project.


----------



## MrZ2u (Feb 1, 2015)

MidKnight said:


> My Squier that I'm using as a template is 1.75 and this one is 1/16 of an inch thicker. So, yeah, I didn't take it down as much as I should have. I'm learning a ton doing this project.


...and on a squire about 1/8th or more of that is the finish. They put a truck load of finish on those. Do you have a plainer that this body will flow through? You can take it down to 1.5 easy...well, unless you went too deep with the pickups already. Next one figure out how deep your pickups need to be and add .5 in to that or take it to 1.5 and call it done. 

I might be building a 'Strat" here soon. Got a crazy piece of cherry I want to use. Making it a neck thru though cause I like them better and also I want to irritate the purists


----------



## MidKnight (Aug 6, 2012)

MrZ2u said:


> ...and on a squire about 1/8th or more of that is the finish. They put a truck load of finish on those. Do you have a plainer that this body will flow through? You can take it down to 1.5 easy...well, unless you went too deep with the pickups already. Next one figure out how deep your pickups need to be and add .5 in to that or take it to 1.5 and call it done.
> 
> I might be building a 'Strat" here soon. Got a crazy piece of cherry I want to use. Making it a neck thru though cause I like them better and also I want to irritate the purists


I have a 13.5" planer. Just a bit too small. Its actually not the pickup cavity that's the deepest, its the control pocket. Although, I did have to take my forstner bit to the pickup cavity to make room for the posts on the H90 pickups. They seemed a bit long, but I wasn't about to goof with them. 

Next build will be a bit thinner with more taken away for the contours.


----------



## MrZ2u (Feb 1, 2015)

FIY...this is a great system for the controls. EMG has one as well but its a little more spendy and I dont know that I think its any better. I hate soldering to pots and in general for that matter. This system is super slick and avoids the iron almost all together and the pots and switches are pretty darn good too. Not scratchy at all, smooth and tight! I have not tried their pickups but if I build that 'strat' I keep threatening to the I think I will order up a set of these to see how they perform. Have read good things so its seems in my estimation to be a rather small $$$ risk.

http://www.guitarfetish.com/Redactives-Individual-Parts-and-Components_c_448.html


----------

