[telecasting]

Chesh, I wouldn't want to undermine you're frustrations about what has been said and I don't want to venture into taking a side in the discussion about who's right and wrong and stuff, so I'm just putting that out there when I ask this, so you don't think I'm avoiding things simply to pacify you.

Anyway, what scale length is the Utah? I'm guessing one of those switches can't change the scale length can it?

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by telecasting

We good?

I'd like to see this thread continue in a vein of compassionate discussion about versatile guitars really. Would be a shame for it be shut down.

Anyway, I've been considering whether one man's versatility is another man's superfluousity. Chesh, Utah, for me, is the crossing over into unnecessary amounts of variation but that kind of versatility is perhaps something that is part of you having played for a long time and needed your guitar to do that many different things.

To my mind, the versatility of a guitar is reached when you feel you can't play everything you want to play with that guitar and the setup you use it with. I think that's why I'd advocate finding a main guitar that most suits your primary style of playing and then get other guitars to fill the gaps. Definitely IMO only.

Btw, we've all talked about types of guitar, but what about woods? What kind of wood is most versatile?

Well, the funny thing is, virtually no one here knows (apart from Rainer perhaps) what all those buttons do.

The Utah (in terms of being a POC guitar) is surprisingly minimalistic in design. I'm basically putting upwards of five different systems on it, and each of those systems only have some 2-3 controls, just like any other guitar.

The system that has the most controls for it is the mag pickup switching system. I called it the UUSS and that was the wiring diagram that was previously alluded to. It's designed to produce every practical pickup combination a three pickup guitar can have, in the most intuitive of arrangements. It's basically the logical extension of what Fender was trying to accomplish with their S-1 switch, and series of S-1 outfitted classics. In the up position, the choices are the usual strat settings (N, N+M, M, M+B, B). In the down position, the switch toggles to the alternate set (ALL3, N>M, N+B, M>B, N>B). Notice how we intuitively know the normal strat settings. We also simply change from series to parallel in positions 2 and 4. We get the "ALL 3" setting, and we also get both versions of N & B, which isn't available on a strat.



Incidentally, ">" means series, and "+" means parallel.

I've also simplified splitting and phase-inverting. The splitter only has three settings: SSS, SSH, and HSH. SSS and HSH are the most commonly used, afaik, and are at the ends, so it works as a two-way toggle, but if you want SSH, then it's in the center. The inverter is simply on and off. It inverts no matter what position you're in. You either have inversion or you don't. No need to remember exactly how you had the other phase inverters set-up.

More later on that.

BTW, what's wrong with poplar? 1000s of strats and p-basses can't be wrong.

From what I've seen, Ash is the most versatile of woods. It seems to work in almost every setting and situation.

Chesh

---

Post Factum

Resized.

[gtrdave]

Originally Posted by CheshireCat

Look more closely at his and gtrdave's comments. Did they ever once say that they didn't particularly care for any square guitar aesthetics, or talk about how the Utah was fairly well executed, but simply not for them?

In a nutshell, yes, that's exactly what I said, although I used a single word (that word being *barf*) to say it, but I'll expound in order to satisfy your request.
No, I do not like square guitars. I also do not like guitars shaped like a state or a vegetable or an internal organ, but that's nit-picking, isn't it?
As far as the execution, I believe that I've seen only 1 picture of the Utah in a semi-completed state. I've never heard it, never seen it in person, never held it and never played it through an amplifier, so I have no clue regarding how well (or not) it was executed.
My apologies if my singluar-word opinion about your guitar was offensive, but I guess I was in a bit of a 'man of few words' mood the day I typed that.

Speaking if which...and to follow-up on the point that thesteve was making...over the years I've read a LOT of words that you've communicated about the Utah, yet, as I said before, I've never heard a sound that this particular guitar has made. No sound clips, no video, nada, zip, zilch.
If you do have some tangible form of media to share that can substantiate the many claims that I've read about the guitar, I and I'm sure many others would love to hear and see what it can do.
To me, an important component of this guitar community is actually playing the guitar and I don't care about anyone's skill level or recording prowess, I just enjoy other people sharing their talents, especially if it involves something that they've made with their hands.
Martin shines in this respect. He builds, he plays, he shares. Others do as well.
You are more than welcome and encouraged to do so, too.

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by telecasting

Chesh, I wouldn't want to undermine you're frustrations about what has been said and I don't want to venture into taking a side in the discussion about who's right and wrong and stuff, so I'm just putting that out there when I ask this, so you don't think I'm avoiding things simply to pacify you.

Anyway, what scale length is the Utah? I'm guessing one of those switches can't change the scale length can it?

25.5", like a strat. As radical as the design may appear, there were definitely a lot of wheels I didn't want to reinvent.

Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of the idea of changing scale-lengths on the fly. If you need some more oomph on the low end, look at a 27" scale-length, or a baritone, or a fan fret system. But that can be worked into the design in a stable way.

Chesh

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Rainer has made similar comments about one of my design choices. Guess what, I still think I chose something I like and I don't care.

It looks like an SG made mutant love to a celtic artifact in an antique furniture store.

But whateva makes ya happy!

Is it just me, or do I keep hearing my name...

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

It looks like an SG made mutant love to a celtic artifact in an antique furniture store.

What's not to like about that? I think that might be the genesis for most all of B.C. Rich's designs.

Originally Posted by Rainer

But whateva makes ya happy!

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Rainer

Is it just me, or do I keep hearing my name...

Are you hearing the voices again? I hate when that happens. Oddly enough, I have the same problem.

Chesh

[ibanez_dude]

I for one would also like to see this thread return to its regularly scheduled program, which I thought was quite interesting. People have apparently offended each other, let's apologize and move on, neither the original comments nor the following discussion seemed very Christ-like to me. So let's end this chapter

I personally find strats to be more versatile, IMHO. In my case, I have Texas Specials in mine, which have a reverse wound middle coil. I have found an incredible array of different sounds in it. On the other hand, I have a single coil in the neck of my LP, which has given me quite a tonal variety too. On yet another hand, I've seen heavy metal on a tele and jazz from an LP, so a lot of the tonal variety is in both the fingers and the other equipment that the player chooses. Theres no question that playing an LP through a JC120 vs a B52 head will give you a very different sound, just as playing with a very middy tone vs totally scooping your mids completely changes your sound.

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by ibanez_dude

I for one would also like to see this thread return to its regularly scheduled program, which I thought was quite interesting. People have apparently offended each other, let's apologize and move on, neither the original comments nor the following discussion seemed very Christ-like to me. So let's end this chapter

Indeed. We are well on our way on that point.

Originally Posted by ibanez_dude

I personally find strats to be more versatile.

Truth be told, if I ever became a big rocker and a guitar company wanted to work with me and do a signature model, it wouldn't be a square guitar that I would want as a siggy. It would be something very close to a strat, with all the features that my Utah would have.

And when I am not geeking out over my Utah, this is the guitar style I like:



I have about 5 other guitar projects that I'm working on, and they will all pretty much look like that . . . including an LP inspired jazzbox.

Chesh

[Gibson SG]

I personally think that a Gibson SG with vintage pickups, played through a little tube amp, is the most versatile guitar for my style. It can get clean, dirty, fat, thin, pretty or nasty at the players' ability. Since everyone has an individual touch, their opinion will be different.

[DennyBob]

Originally Posted by DennyBob

I'm new here, but I want to chime in. I have two very versatile guitars that I think are equally matched:

A Gibson LP Traditional Pro - '57 in the neck, Burstbucker 3 in the Bridge, but each volume pot is a coil split for that PU, so you can have all the traditional LP sounds, 3 different single coil sounds, or two combinations of one humbucker, one single - with different volume/tome for each.

It can get a great tele or P90 sound, and can get about 75% of the way to a strat. Amazing Guitar.

The second one is my Fender Am Std Strat. I had it wired with a push-pull that ties the bridge & Neck PUs together, Giving it 7 pickup choices instead of the usual 5 on a strat.

I'll try again - these are my favorite & most versatile guitars. I'm also rebuilding/customizing an 80's Charvel with one Hum (Steve's Special) and one single, but with a 5-way to get almost every possible combination of the 3 coils.

[daddyo]

1

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by DennyBob

I'll try again - these are my favorite & most versatile guitars. I'm also rebuilding/customizing an 80's Charvel with one Hum (Steve's Special) and one single, but with a 5-way to get almost every possible combination of the 3 coils.

What about series vs. parallel?

[DennyBob]

Originally Posted by CheshireCat

What about series vs. parallel?

Not sure on the strat, I had it done by some local guys in Tarpon Springs called "metal Shop Music" but there is a difference in the tone of the neck & bridge whether the 5 way is in neck or bridge (and positions 2&4), so I guess maybe that's it.

When I pull the switch up, Neck and Bridge positions both equal both those pups live, and 2&4 positions are supposed to be all 3 pickups at once.

I just wanted to ditch the stock single coils in favor of Custom Shop Texas Specials and the push/pull was suggested to me so I thought I'd try it. You can almost get Humbucker thickness out of some of the positions with the tone pulled up.

[ibanez_dude]

The custom shop texal specials are wicked nice, they really breathed life into my strat

[to_be_released]

Sometimes I find that ideas of versatility don't work out in practice. When I first was looking for an electric guitar, I wanted one with a couple of humbuckers with a volume and tone for each, so I could mix in how much of each I was using. In my (inexperienced) mind I thought that this would give me a large range of tonal varieties.

In practice, the epiphone SG that I bought (which I still think is a decent guitar) really only had the bridge vs neck pickup distinction, and I discovered that on the whole I don't like bridge pickups. I tended to leave it on the middle pickup position with all the volume and tone dials maxed, and varied my playing and amplification in order to get the tonal range I wanted.

My current main ax is an old Ibanez strat copy, which pickup-wise gives me a lot more options that I actually use. And when it boils down to it, that's the real measure of versatility - the number of options that you would actually use. No point having options that you'd never utilize.