# Holy shit Blackmachine!!!!



## Panterica (Jan 29, 2009)

This might be 1 of the finest 7 strings i have EVER seen. not just cuz of the metal as hell fretboard inlays but the sheer gorgeousness and simplicity. I want one but i kno the waiting list and i have no money and I'm not a Brit and i'd be more expensive. 

More builders need to take this approach of gorgeous wood quality. Carvin does, but this is just pure great quality. , now ill post the pics then go clean my shorts. 

















 Blackmachine


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 29, 2009)

Blackmachines rule man. I dont really like that inlay though


----------



## sworth9411 (Jan 29, 2009)

bowdown.....thanks for even more gasmaybe when the dollars doing better


----------



## silentrage (Jan 29, 2009)

God I hope there's a cloth under that guitar.


----------



## Rick (Jan 29, 2009)

For what?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 29, 2009)

To keep it from getting scratched from the scratchy looking rocks im guessing.


----------



## silentrage (Jan 29, 2009)

Rick said:


> For what?


Protection. 
If that was my guitar I wouldn't put it down on anything rougher than freshly clubbed baby seal skin.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 29, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Protection.
> If that was my guitar I wouldn't put it down on anything rougher than freshly clubbed baby seal skin.



"Freshly Clubbed"


----------



## Harry (Jan 29, 2009)

Looks fucking nice



Stealthtastic said:


> "Freshly Clubbed"



That one got me laughing hard too


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

Enditol's B7 is the nicest, most understated 7 I've held in my hands:


----------



## Panterica (Jan 29, 2009)

^
thats nice as fuck too dude
god i love it!!!

i really wish BKP would make covers 4 their 7 string pu's
it makes me a saaaaaad panda


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jan 29, 2009)

imo i think the flame inlays ruin an otherwise beautiful guitar


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Jan 29, 2009)

Actually, if you could put the full amount down for one now, the $ is doing pretty well against the &#163;...


----------



## bulletbass man (Jan 29, 2009)

Panterica said:


> ^
> thats nice as fuck too dude
> god i love it!!!
> 
> ...


 

I'm sure Tim would if he found someone who made them. He doesn't have the time to make his own. I don't believe he's found a company to make him 7 string pickup covers. I know he's had difficulties just getting 7 and 8 string bobbins at times.


----------



## hairychris (Jan 29, 2009)

I doubt that you'd get those inlays on any of Doug's newer builds because he's getting more of a wood freak as time goes on.



-Nolly- said:


> Enditol's B7 is the nicest, most understated 7 I've held in my hands:



Screw understated, OTT is the way forwards!  I'm sticking to that.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jan 29, 2009)

The guitar itself looks nice but the inlays ruin it for me.


----------



## petereanima (Jan 29, 2009)

yeah, but i'd still hit it!


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Jan 29, 2009)

Inlays killed an otherwise nice guitar. I love 80s cheese and what not, but with the otherwise minimalist looks of the BM designs, that inlay just looks out of place.


----------



## Apophis (Jan 29, 2009)

cool as always


----------



## sworth9411 (Jan 29, 2009)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Actually, if you could put the full amount down for one now, the $ is doing pretty well against the £...


 
Im gonna wait a few more moonths and see what happens....I have a strong feeling its going to get better.....if that becomes the case I will in a heartbeat.....

Does anyone know if they Have a store front / dealers? I will be in London in June and would love to play on in person before 100% commiting...


----------



## Dusty201087 (Jan 29, 2009)

The thing I love about blackmachines the most is just those ebony tops... They're just freaking gorgeous!

I wish I could play one though  That fanned fret 8 string is absolutely amazing... I want one! Unfortunately I don't have a billion dollars to spend on one guitar


----------



## darren (Jan 29, 2009)

I love the look of a black top on a lighter back. I also really like that he uses acoustic endpins as a combined strap button and output jack... except for the fact that you can't retrofit strap locks onto it.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

darren said:


> I love the look of a black top on a lighter back. I also really like that he uses acoustic endpins as a combined strap button and output jack... except for the fact that you can't retrofit strap locks onto it.



If you want straplocks he can fit a recessed Dunlop straplock above the normal endpin, and swap the button on the horn for a regular Dunlop locking button . My BMs have this setup:


----------



## 7slinger (Jan 29, 2009)

Nolly, that guitar is de-fucking-lish


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

Thanks dude


----------



## caughtinamosh (Jan 29, 2009)

Is there a Blackmachine Church or similar that we can join?

Man, I want a swamp ash seven string BM withh extended scale 

How long are his waiting lists...? Infinitely...?


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> Is there a Blackmachine Church or similar that we can join?
> 
> Man, I want a swamp ash seven string BM withh extended scale
> 
> How long are his waiting lists...? Infinitely...?



Haha, you'd be looking at 2011 before you get a guitar if you join now. That said, it depends how many serious buyers there are on the waiting list. 

How low do you tune? Unless you tune lower than Ab the standard scale B7 will be _more than_ clear enough while still keeping "sweet" sounding top strings.


----------



## WhiteShadow (Jan 29, 2009)

Those flame inlays are the epitome of fugly. Besides that, its a sexy guitar.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

I've got to admit, the flame inlays aren't my thing, though the fact that they are aluminium is very cool.
One of the most recent B2s Doug built has the Shetland Islands cut out of sterling silver and inlayed at the fifth fret (obviously at the customer's request). Looked very classy indeed.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Jan 29, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Haha, you'd be looking at 2011 before you get a guitar if you join now. That said, it depends how many serious buyers there are on the waiting list.
> 
> How low do you tune? Unless you tune lower than Ab the standard scale B7 will be _more than_ clear enough while still keeping "sweet" sounding top strings.



I thought as much 

Good things come to those who wait, I suppose.

I tune to standard EBGDAEB , so yes, the extended scale is probably anal and excessive, but I LOVE extended scale guitars, not only for the increased clarity, but for the sheer physical effort required to play them. Don't ask me to convey why, I just do .

Congratulations on being the owner of such a gorgeous guitar by the way. It truly is a masterpiece.

EDIT : The current buy I have planned from ETGuitars has a scale length of 30". THAT'S how big I like 'em . I'm a bass player at heart, to be honest.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> I thought as much
> 
> Good things come to those who wait, I suppose.
> 
> ...



Interesting, not considered going for an 8 string?
And thanks, I can't express how perfect both guitars are.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Jan 29, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Interesting, not considered going for an 8 string?
> And thanks, I can't express how perfect both guitars are.



Eight strings are a no-go area for me, simply because you can't play low F# power chords (they're far too muddy), and having to avoid doing that would bug the fuck out of me. I love seven strings because you can play low B power chords but still keep everything clear. Man, I wish it was like that on an eight string.

Sorry to hijack the thread folks.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> Eight strings are a no-go area for me, simply because you can't play low F# power chords (they're far too muddy), and having to avoid doing that would bug the fuck out of me. I love seven strings because you can play low B power chords but still keep everything clear. Man, I wish it was like that on an eight string.



EDIT: Shit, sorry, I completely misread your tuning, I thought you'd done it low to high for some reason! 
Doug's built baritone 7s, but he prefers not to just because of the thinner sound of the top strings.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Jan 29, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> EDIT: Shit, sorry, I completely misread your tuning, I thought you'd done it low to high for some reason!
> Doug's built baritone 7s, but he prefers not to just because of the thinner sound of the top strings.



It's alright, I think I typed it backwards anyway, just to be awkward .

Yes, I'm aware of the harshness on the treble strings that's likely to result from the tree trunk of a scale, but it's worth it for the low end clarity. Fanned frets would be ideal, but the price... .


----------



## technomancer (Jan 29, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> Eight strings are a no-go area for me, simply because you can't play low F# power chords (they're far too muddy), and having to avoid doing that would bug the fuck out of me. I love seven strings because you can play low B power chords but still keep everything clear. Man, I wish it was like that on an eight string.
> 
> Sorry to hijack the thread folks.



This is an equipment / pickup issue / settings issue not an inherent property of the instrument. Power chords using the F# were just fine on the Agile 8 I had with the VH-140C. They were however muddy as hell with the Fargen which sounds amazing with the B string.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

caughtinamosh said:


> It's alright, I think I typed it backwards anyway, just to be awkward .
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of the harshness on the treble strings that's likely to result from the tree trunk of a scale, but it's worth it for the low end clarity. Fanned frets would be ideal, but the price... .



Well, I used to think that a 7 had to be a baritone to get clarity on the low string, but playing a 25.5" B7 completely changed my perspective on that.
That said, there is going to be an F7 designed sometime this year if all goes to plan. The plan is actually to go for a slightly different idea with the scale lengths, but he could probably do a 25.5-27" once the design is up and running.


----------



## mikernaut (Jan 29, 2009)

I sooo want that but with a blank fretboard.


----------



## caughtinamosh (Jan 29, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Well, I used to think that a 7 had to be a baritone to get clarity on the low string, but playing a 25.5" B7 completely changed my perspective on that.
> That said, there is going to be an F7 designed sometime this year if all goes to plan. The plan is actually to go for a slightly different idea with the scale lengths, but he could probably do a 25.5-27" once the design is up and running.



 Fanned frets are such a good idea. It's too bad that it's highly unlikely any major manufacturer will exploit the design on a production guitar, but I'd probably want to go completely custom with an instrument as specific as a seven or eight string.


----------



## bulletbass man (Jan 29, 2009)

Personally I'm going for a 26-27.5" scale. But I am very picking about string tension and have extremely abnormal streching abilities so the extra length really doesn't bother me despite my average sized hands.



caughtinamosh said:


> Eight strings are a no-go area for me, simply because you can't play low F# power chords (they're far too muddy), and having to avoid doing that would bug the fuck out of me. I love seven strings because you can play low B power chords but still keep everything clear. Man, I wish it was like that on an eight string.
> 
> Sorry to hijack the thread folks.


 
What's wrong with a High A then. You don't always have to go lower. Or if you want you can have a High A and then tune down a few steps to take more of a middle ground.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 29, 2009)

^^Agreed, the F7 should be a stunning instrument!

I never really see people posting this one, but it's one of my favourites, though the EMGs kinda ruin it:


----------



## caughtinamosh (Jan 29, 2009)

Very true bulletbass man. It's not something I've thought about much, to be honest. I suppose more strings means more options, so it's definitely something I'll consider in the future 

It shall be br00tal .


----------



## Panterica (Jan 29, 2009)

Nolly




i hate you

LOL


----------



## Overtone (Jan 29, 2009)

Nolly's quilt finish = Blimey Street Bloom


----------



## Raoul Duke (Jan 29, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> If you want straplocks he can fit a recessed Dunlop straplock above the normal endpin, and swap the button on the horn for a regular Dunlop locking button . My BMs have this setup:



Where do you live? I want to steal that guitar ha ha 

That is bloody amazing


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 30, 2009)

Hahah, thanks guys!



sworth9411 said:


> Does anyone know if they Have a store front / dealers? I will be in London in June and would love to play on in person before 100% commiting...



There are no store-front or dealers I'm afraid. It's just one guy building guitars, one at a time, in a tiny spare room in his house.
If you're going around mid-June, Doug will probably have a stand at the London Guitar Show this year.


----------



## lefty robb (Jan 30, 2009)

This whole thread makes me want to:


----------



## hufschmid (Jan 30, 2009)

Beautiful Guitars as always


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jan 30, 2009)

IMO TBH SRSLY Im not a fan of the way they look...but I've heard they play like butter.

I'd want one to record with.

The inlay is kind of contrived if you get me...jackson did that once and it looked pretty gay...


----------



## hairychris (Jan 30, 2009)

CrushingAnvil said:


> IMO TBH SRSLY Im not a fan of the way they look...but I've heard they play like butter.
> 
> I'd want one to record with.
> 
> The inlay is kind of contrived if you get me...jackson did that once and it looked pretty gay...



They play like bastards, but a) they aren't for everyone (eg you won't get neck-thru, trem, or a whole bunch of other stuff) and b) you have to wait.

That inlay looks better in person, far better then the Jackson one because it's laser cut aluminium, not MOP. He's used brass for single flame inlays at 12th fret for guitars too which is a bit more understated.

Most builds don't have inlays... Mine don't...


----------



## Panterica (Jan 30, 2009)

i'm really gassin for a b2 as well

fuckin nolly


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 30, 2009)

Pete pointed out to me that the B2 with the Shetland Island inlay I mentioned earlier is actually on the website now under B2: 






I had a play around on it when I collected the B6s, the thing had absolutely jaw-dropping natural resonant tone and sustain. I didn't have a chance to plug it in, but it must sound fucking unholy with the Painkillers.


----------



## zilong (Jan 30, 2009)

How does the rosewood neck affect the tone? I figure that Doug would not be cheap on any component of the guitar, but from what I read, his neck seems to be his most unique trait.


----------



## -Nolly- (Jan 30, 2009)

zilong said:


> How does the rosewood neck affect the tone? I figure that Doug would not be cheap on any component of the guitar, but from what I read, his neck seems to be his most unique trait.



The rosewood neck is extremely dense, and further strengthened by ebony fillets on many of his newer guitars. The idea is to conserve the energy of the strings by limiting the amount of neck vibration, and the result is massive sustain and clarity. 
However, the design needs to be balanced with suitable density timber selection elsewhere, and also there are other rather unique parts of Doug's design that may not be obvious or even visible that contribute to the tone of his instruments.


----------



## mikernaut (Jan 30, 2009)

I totally want that in a 7 minus the inlay. It'd be my dream Blackmachine


----------



## Daggorath (Jan 31, 2009)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Actually, if you could put the full amount down for one now, the $ is doing pretty well against the £...



Which sucks for us folk over here, considering there aren't really many choices of gear made in this country. Exactly why I'm gunna go Laney/Orange when I finally sort out my live rig.


----------



## groph (Jan 31, 2009)

I fucking LOVE these guitars.


----------



## Anthony (Jan 31, 2009)

God damn, I need to own a BlackMachine before I die.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 31, 2009)

Fucking sweet!  Love the headstock. Quick question...

How do they balance? The body is thin and made of ash which is an already light-weight wood.


----------



## 7StringofAblicK (Feb 1, 2009)

georgous guitars. I'll own one the day I make more than 10k a year as a college student


----------



## Anthony (Feb 1, 2009)

sevenstringj said:


> Fucking sweet!  Love the headstock. Quick question...
> 
> How do they balance? The body is thin and made of ash which is an already light-weight wood.



They don't balance. They float from the sheer resonance of the wood.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Feb 1, 2009)

Anthony said:


> They don't balance. They float from the sheer resonance of the wood.



 

Blackmachines, now with hover-guitar technology!


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 1, 2009)

sevenstringj said:


> Fucking sweet!  Love the headstock. Quick question...
> 
> How do they balance? The body is thin and made of ash which is an already light-weight wood.



They balance extremely comfortably. 
The B1 shape, however, can't be made as a 7 or 8-string, as it would neck-dive badly.


----------



## liamh (Feb 1, 2009)

The inlay kinda ruins it for me


----------



## 7slinger (Feb 1, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> The rosewood neck is extremely dense, and further strengthened by ebony fillets on many of his newer guitars. The idea is to conserve the energy of the strings by limiting the amount of neck vibration, and the result is massive sustain and clarity.
> However, the design needs to be balanced with suitable density timber selection elsewhere, *and also there are other rather unique parts of Doug's design that may not be obvious or even visible that contribute to the tone of his instruments.*



such as?


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 1, 2009)

7slinger said:


> such as?



Sorry dude, but I believe it's right to regard such things as trade secrets, not that I understand them well enough to clarify as it is.


----------



## Overtone (Feb 1, 2009)

Elf magic...


----------



## 7slinger (Feb 1, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Sorry dude, but I believe it's right to regard such things as trade secrets, not that I understand them well enough to clarify as it is.



I didn't think you were talking about his "special sauce," my bad


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 1, 2009)

7slinger said:


> I didn't think you were talking about his "special sauce," my bad


 
No worries man, I hope my comment didn't come across as snotty. 
Truth is, I don't have enough knowledge of luthiery to give any sort of details, and I'm not about to hack one of my BMs apart to see. I mean, it'd be one thing for me to explain his methods, it'd be even worse for me to explain his methods and get it wrong


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

^dont get me wrong now, i think the Blackmachines look fucking bitchin, but it sounds like doug could tell you there was a genie in the guitar to make the tone and you'd believe it from the way your sounding. I really doubt he reinvented the wheel here and your kinda making it sound like there is a ton of shit going on that is magic that we cant discuss. Every other guitar manufactuer or luither will tell you the features that make the guitar unique, so if there were actually other behind the scenes type stuff going on i'm sure he would let you know. 

I dont really like this whole "doug knows whats best for everyone who wants a blackmachine" attitude. I know that he is paticular on alot of his details, but lets just get real here, its just a guitar.

not trying to be a dick, i just think that there are tons of other guitars out there from other luithers that play just as good but dont try to display this mysterious uberforce that your not supposed to know about that make them kick ass


----------



## sakeido (Feb 1, 2009)

Blackmachines are just a guitar. A great guitar, in the same way a no holds barred custom shop guitar should be, but they are still just a guitar.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

^thats basically what i was meaning too


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 1, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ^dont get me wrong now, i think the Blackmachines look fucking bitchin, but it sounds like doug could tell you there was a genie in the guitar to make the tone and you'd believe it from the way your sounding. I really doubt he reinvented the wheel here and your kinda making it sound like there is a ton of shit going on that is magic that we cant discuss. Every other guitar manufactuer or luither will tell you the features that make the guitar unique, so if there were actually other behind the scenes type stuff going on i'm sure he would let you know.
> 
> I dont really like this whole "doug knows whats best for everyone who wants a blackmachine" attitude. I know that he is paticular on alot of his details, but lets just get real here, its just a guitar.
> 
> not trying to be a dick, i just think that there are tons of other guitars out there from other luithers that play just as good but dont try to display this mysterious uberforce that your not supposed to know about that make them kick ass



Shit, I was worried it'd get taken that way. 
Let's be clear here, Doug's not trying to sell his guitars on the merit of them having any sort of special 'magic' going on. What I'm trying to say is that every luthier has his/her own ways of building their guitars, and it's their right not to have them posted on a message board, especially by someone who hasn't got the knowledge to relate them accurately. Perhaps the relative lack of info plus my misjudged words has led people to believe that there's an attempt to market Blackmachines as mysterious and magical instruments, but this simply isn't the case, in fact that'd be very much the opposite of the intention.

Sure, it's just some wood with strings on it, and there will be plenty of people for whom that's as far as it goes, but there are subtle ways in which the formula can be changed that yield vastly differing results.
I don't think that the attitude is that "Doug knows best", rather that he knows how he wants his instruments to sound and look, and that he doesn't want to give free reign over that to someone else. Blackmachines are simply not custom guitars - you either choose to take it as offered, selecting the specifics from what's available, or you go to custom shop who can build exactly what you want.

For me though, being a scientific type, the logical but unconventional approach of Doug's designs hits home. I'm a sceptic by nature, and I've only come to the conclusions I have through rational discussion. I don't have anything to defend myself over here, but I'm not the type to be convinced of anything substantial without experience or irrefutable logic.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 1, 2009)

^fair enough


----------



## Trespass (Feb 1, 2009)

I truly love Blackmachines. They remind me of a little shop in Cremona, where a young man by the name of Amatti came upon the perfect design...


----------



## 7slinger (Feb 1, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Doug's not trying to sell his guitars on the merit of them having any sort of special 'magic' going on. What I'm trying to say is that every luthier has his/her own ways of building their guitars, and it's their right not to have them posted on a message board, especially by someone who hasn't got the knowledge to relate them accurately.



so is the special magic an option, or is it included in the price?

j/k I certainly didn't take what you said that way


----------



## Panterica (Feb 2, 2009)

7slinger said:


> so is the special magic an option



we call that option the OFR 

and apparently not


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

7slinger said:


> so is the special magic an option, or is it included in the price?


----------



## hairychris (Feb 2, 2009)

Panterica said:


> we call that option the OFR
> 
> and apparently not



Haha, well, this has been a 'maybe' for years. He's got a FR that he's been meaning to modify with a custom milled sustain block but that hasn't happened.

Problem with OFRs is that the stock sustain block is significantly deeper then the depth of the Blackmachine guitar bodies. Trems also tend to suck sustain, and sustain is one of his goals.


----------



## abstract reason (Feb 2, 2009)

nice guitar...


----------



## Panterica (Feb 2, 2009)

hairychris said:


> Haha, well, this has been a 'maybe' for years. He's got a FR that he's been meaning to modify with a custom milled sustain block but that hasn't happened.
> 
> Problem with OFRs is that the stock sustain block is significantly deeper then the depth of the Blackmachine guitar bodies. Trems also tend to suck sustain, and sustain is one of his goals.



i don't care how he'd do it give me a B6 and B2 with a floyd and i'd go around the world praising BM all day long. 
Black Metal, Black Machine, thats it 
i can just imagine a gold FR on a B6 with a quilt like yours and those camo distressed BKP's

uggghhhh i just came a lil


----------



## bulb (Feb 2, 2009)

im 96.3 percent sure my b6 has a genie inside of it!!


----------



## Panterica (Feb 2, 2009)

canz i rubz it???


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

bulb said:


> im 96.3 percent sure my b6 has a genie inside of it!!



Sssshhhh dude, you're not supposed to tell them about the genies


----------



## canuck brian (Feb 2, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> The rosewood neck is extremely dense, and further strengthened by ebony fillets on many of his newer guitars. The idea is to conserve the energy of the strings by limiting the amount of neck vibration, and the result is massive sustain and clarity.
> However, the design needs to be balanced with suitable density timber selection elsewhere, and also there are other rather unique parts of Doug's design that may not be obvious or even visible that contribute to the tone of his instruments.



I want to make sure I read this right...because it sounds like all kinds of wrong. The neck is designed to not resonate at all and that increases sustain massively? Do you have any sort of documentation regarding this other than subjective hearing opinions? Doug uses ebony on the tops of some of his guitars...so really...wouldn't that deaden the sound as well according to this?

I'm really curious to know these other unique parts of doug's design other than chambering the body and rounding over the armrest after it's already been bound. 

The newer "budget" models that Bulb and you have, from what I read, weren't even totally done by Doug. They were done up to a point by another luthier. I'm not sure where in the process this happens, but since both of the guitars you have are solid bodies with no caps, what did Doug do? 

I'm not bashing Doug or Blackmachine here btw, I'd just like someone to back up all the Blackmachine claims with something other than "it sounds awesome and it's built awesome."


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> I want to make sure I read this right...because it sounds like all kinds of wrong. The neck is designed to not resonate at all and that increases sustain massively? Do you have any sort of documentation regarding this other than subjective hearing opinions? Doug uses ebony on the tops of some of his guitars...so really...wouldn't that deaden the sound as well according to this?
> 
> I'm really curious to know these other unique parts of doug's design other than chambering the body and rounding over the armrest after it's already been bound.
> 
> ...



Yup, you've got the idea with the neck right. If you analyse it as a system, the energy that makes the neck bend back and forth is energy lost from the string's vibration. That energy cannot be regained, and as such results in less sustain. You could achieve the same effect by making the neck thicker, but by using a denser, stiffer material, you can keep the neck dimensions thinner.

Ken Parker says some very interesting things in this article, many of which can be related to the Blackmachine design. I may as well quote a couple of related bits of it here as it's a reasonably long article:



> Sometimes you want to choose a material that tends to be especially homogenous &#8211; particularly for a neck. Your are placing a huge set of demands on this little tiny piece of wood you are using for the neck, and you would like to depend on that material to behave in a predictable way &#8211; to resist the bending forces imposed on it in a predictable way that you can accommodate. For the body, you have more choices since the body is not as critical as an engineering member. For example, you could take one of our guitars and saw chunks off it and its character won&#8217;t change dramatically as long as the structure between the bridge and the neck remained intact. I know&#8230; so certainly the choice of wood has a major role in tone production, but in a way the neck is a sleeper &#8211; people don&#8217;t talk about the neck &#8211; everybody talks about the body as if it&#8217;s doing all of the work and the neck is just something you stuck on there and held in your hand.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yeah, the neck, the stiffnesses and mass at the end of the neck (peghead) and the neck-to-body union, whatever that is &#8211; those things have a huge affect on the way that the instrument can respond and conserve energy, which is what sustain is all about &#8211; the conservation of energy. The energy has to go somewhere. If the string&#8217;s vibration is absorbed by the body of the guitar then we don&#8217;t have sustain. Physics again, but around the shop we playfully refer to each other as guitar scientists.



If you want particulars on the unique building processes Doug uses, speak to him, not me. As I've said several times already, I lack the knowledge and experience to convey the details properly, and I refuse to try and explain something I don't fully understand.

The B6s are far more standard builds. The body and neck blanks are prepared elsewhere, and the finishing (final sanding/shaping, fretting, fitting all hardware/electronics) is done by Doug. I honestly have no idea why they come out sounding the way they do, because on paper the wood selection is fairly standard (though being a luthier, you will understand that choosing the right pieces of wood is absolutely paramount) and there is little unconventional about the design. I can't offer anything other than my opinion on them, which I've given many times (perhaps too many it would seem).


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 2, 2009)

the neck stiffness thing makes tons of sense, really. the harder, denser, and stiffer the neck is, the less it "eats" the string&#180;s vibration. if all the strings are doing is making the neck shake about, then the strings are feeding the vibrations to the neck, instead of keeping it for themselves.

if you use a mushy wood for the neck, like basswood or something (i know no-one does that, but imagine it ), the mushyness of the neck would absorb the vibrations. if you use a hard wood (like maple, or, of course, honduras rosewood with ebony fillets), the strings are unable to "give away" their vibrations to the neck.

what does that mean?

that means the body-wood (which would be made of your preferred tonewood) would be getting the vibrations instead, more so than it would if the neck was eating up vibrations as well. that means the tone of the body wood shines through alot more, and the strings vibrate for longer than otherwise.

it&#180;s just simple physics really, and i&#180;m surprised i didn&#180;t think of it like that before! 

edit: also, if you want to uber-magnify that, you could make your neck out of some insane non-wood material. i&#180;ve seen steel necks before, and i&#180;m assuming that&#180;ll sustain like a bitch!


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

^so if the neck is ment to deaden the vibrations, then how the heck would it be transfering the vibration to the body?? that doesnt make sense.

tbh, i think that the vibration that is lost on the hard neck idea is just lost . It doesnt make sense that the non-vibration transfering neck is going to some how majically going to focus the energy it refused and give it to the body. I think the body and neck each take a certian amount into them depending on what wood is there and if one doesnt take it up, then the energy is lost.

the idea that morton suggested would be like trying to say that:
if you took a shot gun and aimed at the edge of a bullet proof vest, half on the vest and half into the open air, that because the vest doesnt accept the pellets then the pellets it didnt accept are transfered to the open air. That wouldnt happen, the energy of the pellets into the open air would be continued and the energy of the pellets hitting the vest would be stoped and lost.


----------



## canuck brian (Feb 2, 2009)

MF_Kitten said:


> the neck stiffness thing makes tons of sense, really. the harder, denser, and stiffer the neck is, the less it "eats" the string&#180;s vibration. if all the strings are doing is making the neck shake about, then the strings are feeding the vibrations to the neck, instead of keeping it for themselves.
> 
> if you use a mushy wood for the neck, like basswood or something (i know no-one does that, but imagine it ), the mushyness of the neck would absorb the vibrations. if you use a hard wood (like maple, or, of course, honduras rosewood with ebony fillets), the strings are unable to "give away" their vibrations to the neck.



(psst! Ken Parker uses basswood in his Fly necks, has since day one. They're carbon reinforced, but it's still good.)

I understand that if you make a neck out of a material that absorbs sounds, it'll sound shitty. So you're looking for the guitar to resonate....how's this any different from building ANY guitar?

I read thru the entire article that Nolly put up and there were a few interesting things to read. Here's a few!



> Basswood is great material &#8211; it&#8217;s stiffness to weight ratio approaches that of Sitka spruce, which has the best stiffness to weight ratio of any vegetable material.





> Now fast-forward to the Fly guitar &#8211; the neck is made of basswood which is a light, stiff, good-sounding material...


 (this is directly from the mouth of Ken Parker.)

From the rest of the article, it basically talks about the guitar absorbing resonance, which is usually offset by having a stiff neck...like maple...and having a lot of headstock mass...not like a Blackmachine.



> Yeah, the neck, the stiffnesses and mass at the end of the neck (peghead) and the neck-to-body union, whatever that is &#8211; those things have a huge affect on the way that the instrument can respond and conserve energy, which is what sustain is all about &#8211; the conservation of energy. The energy has to go somewhere. If the string&#8217;s vibration is absorbed by the body of the guitar then we don&#8217;t have sustain. Physics again, but around the shop we playfully refer to each other as guitar scientists



So Ken is just saying that he doesn't want the neck or body to absorb sound. 

He goes onto explain that basswood, sitka spruce and poplar can be used for a neck. 



> Poplar is kind of medium density, medium hard, and while I was making the prototypes to prove concepts on the necks I was thinking, man, this stuff goes!



So Ken is just saying that he doesn't want the neck or body to absorb sound. 

Also as a note - Rosewood holds a density rating almost equal to purpleheart, padouk, maple. Ebony holds one of the highest Janka ratings (Wood Hardness, but most of other woods commonly used in necks (maple, purpleheart...) share a very close rating or exceeding that of rosewood.

So it comes down to having a stiff neck and a resonant body that doesn't absorb sounds and kill it. Soo...basic guitar building knowledge?


----------



## Parka Dez (Feb 2, 2009)

Put it this way. As much as we (blackmachine owners) defend the instruments or try make people understand the instrument, it comes down to one thing.

When you play a blackmachine against a Les Paul or other heavy mahogany body guitars, you will find that the blackmachine sustains as long, if not longer than the Les Paul, with an uncomparable weight and playability difference. 

Try to find one to play and you will see the difference. You may or may not like it, but its hard to dispute.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

Parka Dez said:


> Put it this way. As much as we (blackmachine owners) defend the instruments or try make people understand the instrument, it comes down to one thing.
> 
> When you play a blackmachine against a Les Paul or other heavy mahogany body guitars, you will find that the blackmachine sustains as long, if not longer than the Les Paul, with an uncomparable weight and playability difference.
> 
> Try to find one to play and you will see the difference. You may or may not like it, but its hard to dispute.



i;m not necesarrily disputing that quote, BUT, i have talked to a VERY reputable luither on this site that got to play a blackmachine and kept commenting on how thin and weak sounding it was because the body had no mass. I would say that the guy was jelous, but hes not that type so it held some weight with me.
but reguardless, i'l never beable to fork out that much cash for a fiddle so i'l probably never know.


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> ^so if the neck is ment to deaden the vibrations, then how the heck would it be transfering the vibration to the body?? that doesnt make sense.
> 
> tbh, i think that the vibration that is lost on the hard neck idea is just lost . It doesnt make sense that the non-vibration transfering neck is going to some how majically going to focus the energy it refused and give it to the body. I think the body and neck each take a certian amount into them depending on what wood is there and if one doesnt take it up, then the energy is lost.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense in any way. 

The vibrating string has energy. As it vibrates, it is applying a force to the nut. Because this force is being applied on the top side of the neck, it will attempt to pull the neck forwards. This force is not constant, it is fluctuating sinusoidally - as the string's moves to one side, the force increases, then reaches it's maximum as the string reaches its maximum displacement, then reduces to 0 as the string passes through its equilibrium position (of course, the string is applying a force at this point because it is under tension, but that is counterbalanced perfectly by the truss rod), then the process continues. This causes the neck to be pulled upwards and then released very quickly as the string vibrates, and this motion dissipates the string's energy.

Remember that a magnetic pickup only "reads" information from the string, the body's resonance has no direct effect on the pickups. The way the body can affect the sound of a guitar is by affecting the harmonic vibration of the string.
Now, an amount of resonance from a guitar body is needed to make the instrument sound, well, "guitary". But too much resonance will reduce sustain and attack. Since wood is a non-uniform medium, this will come down to the specific density and grain of the wood used, and its cross-sectional dimensions.


----------



## canuck brian (Feb 2, 2009)

Parka Dez said:


> Put it this way. As much as we (blackmachine owners) defend the instruments or try make people understand the instrument, it comes down to one thing.
> 
> When you play a blackmachine against a Les Paul or other heavy mahogany body guitars, you will find that the blackmachine sustains as long, if not longer than the Les Paul, with an uncomparable weight and playability difference.
> 
> Try to find one to play and you will see the difference. You may or may not like it, but its hard to dispute.



Let me sum up that last statement of yours. 

"Blackmachines are better than X". 

A hardcore Gibson player will tell you exactly what you said about Blackmachine by the way. Your ability to make me "understand" an instrument has fallen very...very short. I'm not even asking for you to "defend" blackmachine here...I just want some justification behind the lofty statements. 

Did you happen to read the part where I said I'd like something other than exactly what you post, which by the way, is BRUTALLY subjective. Blackmachine is the only builder of guitars where I've seen people delve into physics come into why the guitar is better. 

Take notes from Nolly and MF who are discussing it instead of pulling the "Blackmachines are just awesome" recitals. It's gotten very old.


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> (psst! Ken Parker uses basswood in his Fly necks, has since day one. They're carbon reinforced, but it's still good.)
> 
> I understand that if you make a neck out of a material that absorbs sounds, it'll sound shitty. So you're looking for the guitar to resonate....how's this any different from building ANY guitar?
> 
> ...



I don't agree with alot MF_Kitten's post, apart from the bits which are my statement's reworded.
The bits you've quoted relate to Ken's design, and that's cool, but his guitars aren't the same as Doug's. The use of carbon lamination is another approach to increasing the stiffness of something without increasing it's mass. The part about not wanting the body or neck to absorb sound is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Energy = sound. The less string energy dissipated, the more sound.

As far as why Doug specifically uses rosewood, I can only assume that was from trial and error. He finds it works for him, so he uses it  . Average density is a good way of comparing timbers, but as you will know, that is only an average. It's possible to find examples of timber that are more dense than normal, and vice versa.

I honestly think you and Doug could have a very interesting discussion about this stuff, you should try and contact him if you want to.


----------



## Parka Dez (Feb 2, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> Let me sum up that last statement of yours.
> 
> "Blackmachines are better than X".
> 
> ...



I didn't say better. I said that it sustained longer....which it does. I'm not going to try and post scientific explainations while someone else has obviously done the research to make that point, you condescending meaty cunt.

Bring the hammer.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

^whoa whoa whoa, dude, cut that insult shit out. no one insulted you and thats completely uncalled for. we were ALL haveing a normal discussion about this with no anger involved, so what makes you think that its alright to start flinging mud??

saying stupid shit like that really makes people listen to, and embrace your point.

also, just because someone else did the "research" doesnt really mean that 1 bit of it is actually correct. 

neg rep for you sir!!


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense in any way.
> 
> The vibrating string has energy. As it vibrates, it is applying a force to the nut. Because this force is being applied on the top side of the neck, it will attempt to pull the neck forwards. This force is not constant, it is fluctuating sinusoidally - as the string's moves to one side, the force increases, then reaches it's maximum as the string reaches its maximum displacement, then reduces to 0 as the string passes through its equilibrium position (of course, the string is applying a force at this point because it is under tension, but that is counterbalanced perfectly by the truss rod), then the process continues. This causes the neck to be pulled upwards and then released very quickly as the string vibrates, and this motion dissipates the string's energy.
> 
> ...



i dont see how that counters the point i made (i might be wrong on this subject, but that quote sounds like smoke and mirrors to me) (no insult ment at all nolly )


----------



## Elysian (Feb 2, 2009)

Parka Dez said:


> I didn't say better. I said that it sustained longer....which it does. I'm not going to try and post scientific explainations while someone else has obviously done the research to make that point, you condescending meaty cunt.
> 
> Bring the hammer.



it shouldn't sustain longer, especially with that tiny headstock. increasing headstock mass tends to significantly increase sustain, something doug has not done with his headstock, i'd imagine chambering the body helps a bit, but a les paul has a lot of factors going for it that would directly conflict with your claim that a blackmachine sustain's longer than a les paul. more mass at either end of string is going to give more sustain, bar none.


----------



## canuck brian (Feb 2, 2009)

Parka Dez said:


> I didn't say better. I said that it sustained longer....which it does. I'm not going to try and post scientific explainations while someone else has obviously done the research to make that point, you condescending meaty cunt.



Ah. We're down to insults. Didn't ask you to post scientific results, just a justification other than "it's better." I pointed out that your attitude is identical to Gibson/Fender/Ibanez/any guitar company you can think of. Can you not think of ANYTHING about that guitar you love? Fretwork? seamless joints? great wiring? 



> The bits you've quoted relate to Ken's design, and that's cool, but his guitars aren't the same as Doug's. The use of carbon lamination is another approach to increasing the stiffness of something without increasing it's mass. The part about not wanting the body or neck to absorb sound is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Energy = sound. The less string energy dissipated, the more sound.



Ohnononooonoo...ya missed me here...and at the same time i think i finally figured out what you're trying to relay here. 

I only pointed out the poplar/basswood thing because (well it's basswood! ) it's a very not dense wood that does sound pretty decent, very far from the density/hardness of the typical Blackmachine wood. 

So we're looking at having a neck resonate, but not overly, and not absorbing the sound...same with the body. That's pretty standard fare for making any guitar.... Doug probably uses rosewood because it generally looks fucking awesome in a neck. I'm still in awe of that snakewood neck he did.

The headstock mass thing was for the smaller headstock that doug uses.


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> i dont see how that counters the point i made (i might be wrong on this subject, but that quote sounds like smoke and mirrors to me) (no insult ment at all nolly )



Hmm perhaps I read MF_Kitten's post a bit too quickly the first time, so I didn't see the bit about transferring the energy into the body to get more tone, which is pretty nonsensical. In that respect you're right.

But, it does seem like you still have a slightly odd view on it. The energy is contained within the string while it vibrates (well, once you've given it kinetic energy by picking it). Technically, the most efficient energy transfer would result from the guitar being a completely rigid body, suspended in a vacuum. That would mean that the energy would be conserved within the string, and you would get literally infinite sustain, if you ignore the magnetic pull of the pickup magnets on the strings.
However, this wouldn't necessarily result in "good" tone. In other words, you have to sacrifice sustain if you want to have a body that resonates and imparts it's own harmonic flavour on the vibration of the string. .. I'm at risk of repeating myself entirely here, so I'll stop.
Is there anything here that is illogical to you?


----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 2, 2009)

Parka Dez said:


> I didn't say better. I said that it sustained longer....which it does. I'm not going to try and post scientific explainations while someone else has obviously done the research to make that point, you condescending meaty cunt.
> 
> Bring the hammer.



That was totally unnecessary... No-one here is trying to start a fight, so why do you feel compelled to start flinging heavy handed insults? 

And this research you speak of... Where?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

edit : oops, ninja edit


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Hmm perhaps I read MF_Kitten's post a bit too quickly the first time, so I didn't see the bit about transferring the energy into the body to get more tone, which is pretty nonsensical. In that respect you're right.
> 
> But, it does seem like you still have a slightly odd view on it. The energy is contained within the string while it vibrates (well, once you've given it kinetic energy by picking it). Technically, the most efficient energy transfer would result from the guitar being a completely rigid body, suspended in a vacuum. That would mean that the energy would be conserved within the string, and you would get literally infinite sustain, if you ignore the magnetic pull of the pickup magnets on the strings.
> However, this wouldn't necessarily result in "good" tone. In other words, you have to sacrifice sustain if you want to have a body that resonates and imparts it's own harmonic flavour on the vibration of the string. .. I'm at risk of repeating myself entirely here, so I'll stop.
> Is there anything here that is illogical to you?



i have an odd view on it because my view is purely speculation  I'm by no means a luither so i could be totally wrong.
i just figured that if you pluck a string that a percentage of the vibration goes to the neck and a percentage goes to the body. if the body absorbs its percentage i was just implying that just because the neck doesnt absorb its percentage doesnt mean that the body would recieve what the neck didnt absorb. i suppose it could be like a wave in a bathtub too thought, the unabsorbed neck vibration could roll right against the nut and back down to be absorbed by the body. 
once again, i have no clue

the last part about "In other words, you have to sacrifice sustain if you want to have a body that resonates and imparts it's own harmonic flavour on the vibration of the string" does make sense to me though


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> Ohnononooonoo...ya missed me here...and at the same time i think i finally figured out what you're trying to relay here.
> 
> I only pointed out the poplar/basswood thing because (well it's basswood! ) it's a very not dense wood that does sound pretty decent, very far from the density/hardness of the typical Blackmachine wood.
> 
> So we're looking at having a neck resonate, but not overly, and not absorbing the sound...same with the body. That's pretty standard fare for making any guitar.... Doug probably uses rosewood because it generally looks fucking awesome in a neck. I'm still in awe of that snakewood neck he did.



Okidoke, we're at an agreement then. As you say, there's nothing but common-sense luthier stuff here, but it's taken further than I've seen elsewhere.
Rosewood (and this is _extremely_ dense rosewood we're talking about here) is used because of the stiffness it has, allowing him to use the thinner neck profiles he prefers.
Snakewood came about because he wanted to take the idea to an extreme, and find the stiffest wood available. He was told that snakewood was the stiffest around, but that it would be impossible to build a neck out of. He took it as a challenge and built four guitars with solid snakewood necks. He was blown away by the sustain that the extra stiffness grants. The unique figuring is very cool, but not the origin of the idea. 
I believe it was after seeing what stiffening the neck further does for the sustain that he looked into using the ebony fillets to stiffen the rosewood neck even more.

The headstock mass thing is directly related to the vibration of the string. By adding mass to the end of the neck, you increase the moment (turning force) that the string's have to apply to the neck to make it bend. In the case of the BMs, this is far outweighed by the stiffer nature of the neck.



7 Strings of Hate said:


> i have an odd view on it because my view is purely speculation  I'm by no means a luither so i could be totally wrong.
> i just figured that if you pluck a string that a percentage of the vibration goes to the neck and a percentage goes to the body. if the body absorbs its percentage i was just implying that just because the neck doesnt absorb its percentage doesnt mean that the body would recieve what the neck didnt absorb. i suppose it could be like a wave in a bathtub too thought, the unabsorbed neck vibration could roll right against the nut and back down to be absorbed by the body.
> once again, i have no clue
> 
> the last part about "In other words, you have to sacrifice sustain if you want to have a body that resonates and imparts it's own harmonic flavour on the vibration of the string" does make sense to me though



Rightio, I see what you're saying here. You're right that the neck not dissipating a certain amount of the energy doesn't mean that the body "absorb its percentage", but that is the exact point - the energy is retained within the string instead, so it keeps sustaining.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 2, 2009)

-Nolly- said:


> Rightio, I see what you're saying here. You're right that the neck not dissipating a certain amount of the energy doesn't mean that the body "absorb its percentage", but that is the exact point - the energy is retained within the string instead, so it keeps sustaining.



that really does make sense when i think about it.

so how hard is the maple and hardrock maple that alot of manufactuers use compared to rosewood?


----------



## -Nolly- (Feb 2, 2009)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> that really does make sense when i think about it.
> 
> so how hard is the maple and hardrock maple that alot of manufactuers use compared to rosewood?



Awesome 

Hmm, again here, you have to think about that fact that the same type of wood can come in a wide range of densities and grain patterns. Beyond that, the way the wood is cut and used is affects its structural rigidity. 
I'm not anywhere near well-versed enough to make a quantitative comparison here, but suffice to say the rosewood Doug uses for his necks are very much stiffer than your average piece of maple.


----------



## Parka Dez (Feb 2, 2009)

My post was uncalled for. I apologise for that.

However those of you who are offended by the word cunt, Im sorry, but I love that word.


----------



## bulb (Feb 2, 2009)

man all that reading when all that needs to be said is that neither nolly, dez nor I are ever saying that blackmachines are better guitars. They are just better guitars to us. I personally have never played a guitar that was as balanced tonally or sustained even close to the amount that this guitar does, and i owned a les paul for a long time (which i loved dearly)
but to me this guitar is just built exactly the way i love!

because its built in such a specific way, it will most certainly not appeal to everyone. but for people who have the same tastes in guitars as nolly, dez and i, i think you would be hard pressed to find something we like better, and hell if you do find something, then i want one hahah!


----------



## Elysian (Feb 2, 2009)

i'd be willing to bet it has more to do with it not having a proper finish than anything.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 2, 2009)

My money is on this "Blackmachine" Doug refers to actually being a codename for a perpetual motion machine built into every guitar he makes, thus increasing sustain many times.

It's the same technology the aliens killed Elvis over.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 2, 2009)

I just came back here to obtain some blackmachine pronz and I was reminded how no matter what chances are I will never own one of these


----------



## JoshuaLogan (Feb 3, 2009)

haha this thead is classic


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 3, 2009)

damn! 

i wan&#180;t really talking about blackmachines, i was talking about guitar necks in general 

the part about the tone from the body wood coming through more may or may not actually be true, but while i was trying to explain how i understood the whole thing, i just kinda went nuts with thoughts on how this could affect the whole construction etc.

so i was wrong about the basswood, and had i known they used basswood necks, i would&#180;ve written "cork" or something, the specific material isn&#180;t important. the idea of a mushy wood is 

you guys get what i was trying to explain though, right? the general idea is that if the necks don&#180;t absorb the energy of the strings, the strings don&#180;t lose that energy, and instead keep vibrating. re-thinking my thoughts on the body wood and tone though, i realize it doesen&#180;t make that much sense now that i&#180;m not half-asleep past midnight 

MEETY CUNTTS TEH LOT OF YA!


----------



## hairychris (Feb 3, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> So we're looking at having a neck resonate, but not overly, and not absorbing the sound...same with the body. That's pretty standard fare for making any guitar.... Doug probably uses rosewood because it generally looks fucking awesome in a neck. I'm still in awe of that snakewood neck he did.
> 
> The headstock mass thing was for the smaller headstock that doug uses.



Hehe, I can't quote science but I can quote regular use of one of the solid snakewood necked B6s.

It's a weird instrument alright. When you play, you get relatively little vibration from the neck, but a lot from the body which in this case is mahogany with a quilt sapele top, not chambered. The body, however, does resonate well.

If I compare this to my rosewood necked PRS, this guitar gives you far more feedback to the left hand, the body resonates quite significantly too ( the trem cavity helps).

I've not really A/Bed these guitars for sustain, although maybe I should. I use them for different things, and the pickups are _very_ different - Miracle Man/Mule in B6, Cold Sweats in the PRS. The B6 is tight to an unholy degree, mind you, with the pickup choice accentuating that. My B6 is a couple of years old and was built before Doug started chambering his instruments, fwiw.

One thing I can say is that the rosewood in B6s like Nolly's, and the IRW that PRS use are very different. The PRS Indian rosewood is nowhere near as dense as the wood in the B6's neck. I've only had a very brief chance to play a BRW necked PRS so can't compare.

I've got an incoming B7 that's a) chambered and b) has a solid Madagascan rosewood neck. I think that I'll try A/B/Cing these unplugged & see how they behave. I won't bother plugging them in as the 7 will have Alnico Warpigs so have a completely different character again.

Without knowing the physics behind it, Doug does know what he's doing. However, and I keep saying this, his guitars are not for everyone and he'll be the first person to admit it!  I will say that I've played a few of his different guitars and have not found a 'dead' one. I'll also say that I've also got a soft spot for nice Carvin guitars who's construction goes against pretty much everything that Doug does but they still work great!


----------



## canuck brian (Feb 3, 2009)

hairychris said:


> Hehe, I can't quote science but I can quote regular use of one of the solid snakewood necked B6s.
> 
> It's a weird instrument alright. When you play, you get relatively little vibration from the neck, but a lot from the body which in this case is mahogany with a quilt sapele top, not chambered. The body, however, does resonate well.
> 
> ...



This is exactly what I like to read in a discussion!

I've got no doubt that Doug is exceptional at building, I was just trying to find out details. 

Do you guys with the chambered Blackmachines find they're more resonant than others?


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 3, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> Do you guys with the chambered Blackmachines find they're more resonant than others?



When I play Nolly's, it does make mah belleh wobble.


----------



## sakeido (Feb 3, 2009)

canuck brian said:


> This is exactly what I like to read in a discussion!
> 
> I've got no doubt that Doug is exceptional at building, I was just trying to find out details.
> 
> Do you guys with the chambered Blackmachines find they're more resonant than others?



Sacha's chambered B7 sounded pretty fucking awesome unplugged, and it felt weird playing it.. I could feel the notes in my chest. Plugged in with some nice distortion, I doubt I'd ever be able to tell his blackmachine apart from his BFR.


----------



## Elysian (Feb 3, 2009)

sakeido said:


> Sacha's chambered B7 sounded pretty fucking awesome unplugged, and it felt weird playing it.. I could feel the notes in my chest. Plugged in with some nice distortion, I doubt I'd ever be able to tell his blackmachine apart from his BFR.



is his B7 made of ash by chance? my swamp ash 6er is like that, it resonates like a motherfucker, especially after i put the graphtech resomax bridge on it, and i figure it has to do with ash, if you tap an ash board, you can feel that tap throughout the entire board, if you put it up to your ear and tap it, it sounds plinky, thats just how ash is.


----------



## sakeido (Feb 3, 2009)

Elysian said:


> is his B7 made of ash by chance? my swamp ash 6er is like that, it resonates like a motherfucker, especially after i put the graphtech resomax bridge on it, and i figure it has to do with ash, if you tap an ash board, you can feel that tap throughout the entire board, if you put it up to your ear and tap it, it sounds plinky, thats just how ash is.



His is really old mahogany I think. Its heavier than I expected a blackmachine to be, too, maybe because its mahogany instead of swamp ash? The woods used on his guitar are stunning to see in person.. just looking at that guitar is a treat, the backside especially. From the front it is pretty unassuming... but then you see the grain on the neck


----------



## Elysian (Feb 3, 2009)

this is to whoever neg rep'd me for my post about mass at either end of the string effecting sustain(and tone)

Add-on headstock mass device for a stringed musical instrument - US Patent 6515209 Description

try it out, clamp something to your headstock, and try and tell me with a straight face that i'm wrong.

in fact, they sell them!

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Groove-Tubes-Fat-Finger-Guitar-Sustain-Enhancer?sku=420270

thanks for the neg rep, but make sure you know what you're talking about next time you decide to give it to me(or anyone for that matter).


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 3, 2009)

whoa, someone disagreed that neck/headstock mass = more sustain?

it&#180;s pretty obvious, really...


----------



## caughtinamosh (Feb 3, 2009)

MF_Kitten said:


> whoa, someone disagreed that neck/headstock mass = more sustain?
> 
> it´s pretty obvious, really...



According to Dean, that's why their headstocks are fashioned as such, ugly motherfuckin' headstocks that they are. Yeuch.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 3, 2009)

haha 

"teh devil horns makes teh icky tone last longer!?"


----------



## gaunten (Feb 4, 2009)

I actually thought the inlays were pretty cool on that first one


----------



## Panterica (Feb 4, 2009)

i like the inlay too, though i knew alot of people would hate on it


----------

