• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The Über-Jay Mark2

#141
Hi there. This one is longer than usual, so grab a cup of coffee - or a beer, if you too are sitting on this side of the pool.

I haven't uploaded new pictures for almost a week now. This was due to some software problem between camera and my new laptop. Unfazed, the build has slowly crawled forward and I'm just a few days away from the final stage. My customer is returning from his holiday on Friday night, so...well... I want to make a good impression :)

Headstock.

IMG_6245_2.jpg


With a small bit and my proprietary high tech template, routing the channels for the Allen key is a breeze. A small rounded filer to shape the bottom of the otherwise flat channel, and voila'....er....some of the walls need ... more sanding...whatever....

IMG_6246_2.jpg


The pencil lines mark the area to be sanded down to a shape similar to that of the first Über-Jay. The picture below shows an early stage of the shaping. In fact it's now finished. But it's too dark for decent pictures. I'll take one tomorrow.

IMG_6244_2.jpg


The picture below shows the headstock after drilling the recess for the strings ferrules. You might remember that earlier on I uploaded pictures of the various ferrules I had made and how I was contemplating using smaller ones for this build.

In the end I opted for the same ones I mounted on the first build. They are just a better fit for this bass. On a different headstock I'd probably choose the smaller ones. I forgot to take a picture with the ferrules inserted... :scowl: it looks pretty neat. I'll oblige tomorrow :)

IMG_6258_2.jpg


Bridge

After checking the bridge/tuner and pondering over a few aesthetic considerations that bugged the heck out of me for a few days, I decided to change the shape of the bridge/T recess.

For one, this type of bridges seem to work better if the tuners are mounted at an angle while the bridge and saddles stay flat.
Thus, the recess under the tuners needed to be reshaped too.

The aesthetic reason is that, compared to the first one this build sports sharper lines all around its profile. Therefore, I felt was necessary to reshape this area accordingly.

This is somewhere during the process.

IMG_6239_2.jpg


I hope you have noticed the proprietary Ü-J sand block and the even more proprietary SMOGS (Sand Monitoring Graphite System). At the Ü-J, we invest copious amount of cash in R&D.

After the usual eons of sanding and routing, here it goes. More sanding needed (you don't say!) But it's almost there :)

IMG_6261_2.jpg



Neck screws.

Since the previous build, I've been thinking of ways to do this a little different. Doing things differently for the sake of being different is of little interest to me. To copy - or take 'inspiration' from others' creative work - interests me even less. I wanted a solution which could contributes to the overall style of this specific build.

Eventually I landed on this solution, which satisfies me helluvalot in more than one aspect.
It's not far from the traditional way and yet it represents quite a departure from it. Classic with a twist - true to the Ü-J's mission.

IMG_6252_2.jpg


I had made a few alternative ferrules to go with Allen screws - different sizes and plating for both. This is the chosen combo - small, black ferrules with stainless steel screws.

The surprise element pops up when the neck is unscrewed.

IMG_6251_2.jpg


This is soooo Ü-J :bassist:

Lastly....

After agonizing a few weeks I finally chose, glued, trimmed and sanded the veneer for the fingerboard's end.

IMG_6260_2.jpg


Hope you enjoyed your Wednesday issue. :bassist:
 
#146
As promised, here's a picture of the headstock with string ferrules.

IMG_6274_2.jpg


Between black and chrome plated, eventually I decided to go with chrome. Sergio leaves every choice to me and actually doesn't want to be involved in this at all - he likes the surprise factor ;) - Sergio is the future owner.

The back of the headstock with clean channels...the burning marks left by the router are quite a pain to sand off. Oh well, I had to widen the channels anyway :D

IMG_6269_2.jpg


The shape is pretty much there, even though until now I've only used a filer. A few rounds of sand paper will make the contours and lines more deliberate.

You might notice that, as much as the overall design is similar to the first Ü-J, it is quite different in the details. The first one was slimmer and curvier. This one looks slightly thicker with sharper lines.

Of course it isn't thicker, it's just an illusion due to the line carved along the back profile. IMO, this goes better with the more in-you-face style of this build and echoes the carving of the body.

IMG_6267_2.jpg


I'll wrap this up with my very own entrance to the Cheope's pyramid ;)

IMG_6263_2.jpg


This is the detail of the neck pick up recess and the opening into the chamber. You might remember from the first few pictures of the body - I think that's page 1 of this thread - that the lower chamber and the electronics cavity are connected.

The chamber was routed a mere 3 mm away from the planned position of the p-up's edge. Now that they are connected, the wiring can go directly through the chamber and into the el. cavity without extra drilling :hyper: The bridge p-ups is in an even better position, just 3 mm away from the el cavity itself.

Tomorrow I'll route the bridge p-up, drill the neck, jack, pots and strap holes, carve the nut slot and start sanding the whole thing to prepare for staining and spraying. Almost there....
just gimme a couple of weeks :hyper:
 
#149
Your design makes so much sense. Why not have the tuners at the bridge? That puts all string adjustment in one spot.

I personally prefer truss rod adjustment at the headstock, like you have, but after talking with some luthiers I really have started to prefer adjustment at the heel.

If your design had truss rod adjustment at the heel, there would be absolutely no adjustments going on at the headstock. Everything you fiddle with would be on or near the body. I really like that.
 
#150
Thank you all! :)

KingRazor said:
...

I personally prefer truss rod adjustment at the headstock, like you have, but after talking with some luthiers I really have started to prefer adjustment at the heel.

If your design had truss rod adjustment at the heel, there would be absolutely no adjustments going on at the headstock. Everything you fiddle with would be on or near the body. I really like that.
Click to expand...

Hey KingRazor, thanks! :)

There is actually a recent thread on the placement of t-rod adjustment. The majority seemed more in favor of adjustment at the heel. Someone posted a list of makers showing that actually out there is probably a 50/50 thing.

I prefer adjustment at the headstock. Simply put, it's out of the way when it matters the most - while playing. Playing styles evolve by leaps and bounds. Years ago I would have never thought that the adjustment at the heel would get in the way with my playing style. Now it does.

Some feel that having it at the heel allows the t-rod to work more efficiently. It may be so. But the only basses I ever had with neck/t-rod problems where the lousy ones - regardless of where the adj was.

On a good neck the t-rod adjustment is a task one seldom has to perform. So, to me, at the headstock is actually the better place.

Having said so, mine is a very personal POV, dictated by my playing style. Should anyone ever want a Ü-J with compulsory truss rod adj at the heel, I would gladly oblige ;)
 
#151
miziomix said:
Thank you all! :)



Hey KingRazor, thanks! :)

There is actually a recent thread on the placement of t-rod adjustment. The majority seemed more in favor of adjustment at the heel. Someone posted a list of makers showing that actually out there is probably a 50/50 thing.

I prefer adjustment at the headstock. Simply put, it's out of the way when it matters the most - while playing. Playing styles evolve by leaps and bounds. Years ago I would have never thought that the adjustment at the heel would get in the way with my playing style. Now it does.

Some feel that having it at the heel allows the t-rod to work more efficiently. It may be so. But the only basses I ever had with neck/t-rod problems where the lousy ones - regardless of where the adj was.

On a good neck the t-rod adjustment is a task one seldom has to perform. So, to me, at the headstock is actually the better place.

Having said so, mine is a very personal POV, dictated by my playing style. Should anyone ever want a Ü-J with compulsory truss rod adj at the heel, I would gladly oblige ;)
Click to expand...
With most of the basses I've played I find it hard to imagine the truss rod placement affecting playability at all. Even with slap/pop. But I suppose it's possible.

The two reasons I like the idea of adjustment at the heel are:

1. Putting the adjustment at the headstock takes away wood from the weakest part of the neck.

2. Putting the adjustment at the heel, in a build like yours would mean all adjustment is done on or near the body, which I think is cool.

That being said, it's really not that big of a deal to me. Besides, I never do my own truss rod adjustments. If any of that sort of maintenance is needed, I take the bass to my local tech and have them do it.

Pro for adjustment at the headstock: that awesome T-rod access cover you made on the Uber Jay 1 :bassist:

Let it be known that if I ever buy a Jazz bass, the Uber Jay will be at the top of my list for brands I'd consider.
 
#152
KingRazor said:
With most of the basses I've played I find it hard to imagine the truss rod placement affecting playability at all. Even with slap/pop. But I suppose it's possible.

The two reasons I like the idea of adjustment at the heel are:

1. Putting the adjustment at the headstock takes away wood from the weakest part of the neck.

2. Putting the adjustment at the heel, in a build like yours would mean all adjustment is done on or near the body, which I think is cool.

That being said, it's really not that big of a deal to me. Besides, I never do my own truss rod adjustments. If any of that sort of maintenance is needed, I take the bass to my local tech and have them do it.

Pro for adjustment at the headstock: that awesome T-rod access cover you made on the Uber Jay 1 :bassist:

Let it be known that if I ever buy a Jazz bass, the Uber Jay will be at the top of my list for brands I'd consider.
Click to expand...

Man, you just made my day :) Über and I thank you very much!

Indeed, the argument of leaving the h/s alone is a sound one AND you do have a point on the cool factor :D So, now you got me thinking... how to make a t-rod adj. at the heel invisible to my fingers? another challenge! great! :bassist:

ps: This is how the t-rod adj get's in the way with my playing style.

I use a mix of slap and classic arpeggio technique which makes use of all five fingers. While playing, some of my fingers - especially the ring and little finger - slide back and forth along the body, right under the strings at the f/board's end.

This is one of the reasons I prefer 22 frets and 5 to 6mm between strings and body. The body basically provides an even point of reference - sort of what many seem to get from a ramp. Thus, the slightest irregularity in that area would 'get in the way' ;)
 
#157
Hi there. The bridge pick-up recess is routed and connected to the el. cavity. Again, less than a minute digging with a chisel broke through the 3mm of soft Swam Ash. A small file did the rest in a few more minutes :) Isn't it just lovely when things go as planned? A fair pay back for all the times they don't ;)

IMG_6294_2.jpg


IMG_6290_2.jpg


Then I cleaned up all the excess glue and dirt from the corners inside the cavity. I'll mark the knobs' position today - it's gonna be a 3 knobs set up.

IMG_6293_2.jpg


The neck veneer is ready. The dark spot was a small crack in the wood, which had to be filled with sawdust and superglue. There's another one as you can see - I didn't see it until I took this picture....:rollno:

IMG_6297_2.jpg


On a side note, I screwed the neck to the body and lifted it up for the first time. I couldn't believe I was actually holding it - I thought I had forgotten to mount some parts. That's how light it is. On the scale, body/neck/tuners and bridge weight 1.7kg or 3.7 lb! Add very light p-ups/el, frets, strings, strap locks, super light nut ....er... lacquer... ;)

more sanding awaits........... have a nice day :bassist:
 
#160
Big_Daddy said:
.....1.7kg?

'Doc, I've got back issues. I could never give up playing bass, but I just can't deal with the back pain anymore!

Well Kaputnik, I'm afraid you'll have to give up playing that T-40 and I'll write you up a prescription for an Uber-Jay'.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! I nearly spayed coffee all over my laptop!!! :D

hey joeyl... too much breeze might just make it float away, as Mr BryanM rightfully noted on day one ;)

BryanM said:
Considering what the first one weighed, I imagine a chambered one of these would float away....
Click to expand...

We'll see, we'll see... I'm used to basses suddenly putting on weight - the Mk1 for instance ;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back