Well bolt-on got 60% votes right now so... I guess it'll be bolt on 
The Official Agile ERG Thread
- Thread starter darren
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
eightballhemhorrage
Well-Known Member
WEAK!!! guess it IS the pro model for me then!!
darren
Forum MVP
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 12,822
- Reaction score
- 1,349
I'm pleased that the bolt-on neck option is winning out. To me, having a neck-thru model and a bolt-on model gives a more diverse range of choices. Neck-thru and set-neck wouldn't be different enough in my mind to make them interesting choices.
forelander
you fail me
During consideration of tuners, has any thought been given to the gauges of strings that are likely to be used? It'd be nice not to have to do any drilling to get a .70+ string through the tuner.
tofumannen
Active Member
Very good point
Just a thought, although I'm not sure if anyone wants to go through any design changes....
If we went with a 8-inline reversed headstock, the Low F# tuner would be far enough away from the nut that only the taper of the string would go through the tuner. Not the full width of the string (.070+). Plus, I'd kill for a reverse 8-inline.
TemjinStrife
Power Metal Cellist
Good point. However, I believe that we're too far in the design process to change the production model; that said, I know that Kurt appears to be pretty open to new ideas for custom guitars.
Yeah, I'm still gonna buy whatever comes out.
forelander
you fail me
Just a thought, although I'm not sure if anyone wants to go through any design changes....
If we went with a 8-inline reversed headstock, the Low F# tuner would be far enough away from the nut that only the taper of the string would go through the tuner. Not the full width of the string (.070+). Plus, I'd kill for a reverse 8-inline.
The only problem I see with that, and with the scale I'm already worried, is the balance - the 27" interceptors used to (might not anymore) dive and I'm sure it was coz of all the length on the end with the extended scale and inline headstock.
On that note, has anyone thought been given to strap button placement for balance, considering the extended scale? Might not be a problem, might be worth while. Again, just throwing it out there.
The body seems like its going to be pretty big, seeing as its a bass body so maybe the neck dive won't be as bad that way.
For those interested: I e-mailed Graphtech regarding whether it is possible to install a piezo in an 8 string and here is the reply I got:
The Acousti-Phonic board will handle input from eight strings (or more). It will be necessary to increase the number of plug-in connections available for pickups by adding an extra Summing Board, and daisy chaining the two Summing boards together with an extra Dual Connector Cable Assembly:
BE-5017-00 Summing Board $4.22
BE-5021-00 Dual Connector Cable Assembly $2.46
I don't know if any of the graphtech piezo saddles will fit in the hipshot/rondo bridges though???
The Acousti-Phonic board will handle input from eight strings (or more). It will be necessary to increase the number of plug-in connections available for pickups by adding an extra Summing Board, and daisy chaining the two Summing boards together with an extra Dual Connector Cable Assembly:
BE-5017-00 Summing Board $4.22
BE-5021-00 Dual Connector Cable Assembly $2.46
I don't know if any of the graphtech piezo saddles will fit in the hipshot/rondo bridges though???
Kronpox
shrent? shrent.
In the spec sheet shown it says it's calling for a low 72, so I'm hoping that that is thought of when the tuners are picked- at the very least, when they're at the factory trying to string them up, they'd go "HURRR ITS NOT GOING IN" and fix it.
I totally want to get a synth rig happening in mine but it's not worth the cost. Piezo could still be cool though.
I totally want to get a synth rig happening in mine but it's not worth the cost. Piezo could still be cool though.
metalhead6061
Well-Known Member
Ahh I said this in the thread with the poll but nobody answered me. But don't you think 15" radius is really round for an 8?
It's 15" because it's what Kahler 8 string trem are made for.
metalhead6061
Well-Known Member
I thought that the kahler trems could be adjusted to any radius?
darren
Forum MVP
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 12,822
- Reaction score
- 1,349
15" is still pretty flat. It's not like it's a very Strat-like 8" or 9" radius. Yes, it's a little rounder than the RG2228, but still not what i'd call a "really round" radius.
Kahler bridges can be adjusted to just about any radius, but the nut is designed for a 15" radius.
With a 15" radius at the nut, it's probably not worth the time and expense to do a compound radius to 18" or 19" at the bridge. On a 28.625" scale instrument, that'd be a really subtle difference.
Kahler bridges can be adjusted to just about any radius, but the nut is designed for a 15" radius.
With a 15" radius at the nut, it's probably not worth the time and expense to do a compound radius to 18" or 19" at the bridge. On a 28.625" scale instrument, that'd be a really subtle difference.
metalhead6061
Well-Known Member
Ehh... I see where your coming from.
Darren, I just want to say thanks for starting and sheperding along all of this. You're the coolest and you have great taste in music (Sylvian/Fripp, Mick Karn)
wes225
Banned
is anyone planning to put the kahler 8 in this?
