Post by lexluthier on Apr 23, 2014 18:38:15 GMT
Hi fredcapo
Thank you for your input. Its always difficult in these situations to understand or assess where the question asker is re: skill sets or level of understanding of the subject in question, a problem I have admired Michaels patience in overcoming in his altruistic efforts to help budding and even more experienced resonator lovers. Just to clarify, the previously uploaded images are from shortly after I received the guitar and was disassembling it in order to inspect its construction and problems. I have since done a considerable amount of work on the guitar. I wont list all the work but enough to say as a result and many experimental set-ups I seem to have achieved a good level of volume, sustain and that punch you get when everything seems to be tight and in balance. I cant seem to pull anything more out of it since rebuilding and setting-up, so that's what I describe as 'first set-up'. I have now let it settle for well over a week as all this work is a real trauma to the instrument and everything needs tighten up and remember its a guitar again. That's the point I am asking my questions from. My guitar friends are astounded at the transformation in tone, volume sustain projection already, say it sounds really sweet, but I know there's an certain element missing, a zing to the strings so to speak that I can only now conclude is the cones, hence my question. Just a note on the body at the heel, the design seems to be a prototype of some sort and not been messed with after the fact. 'a bit of history' as Michael rightly pointed out, so no metal bashing here, have made a wedged shaped shim to suit the set-up and all is tight and fine!
Hi resonatorman
Thank you for you input. I suspected from the very rough looking manufacture, unevenness between the three and their early production that the cones may not be up to the job. have been reluctant to just bin them as I like to try and keep things as original as possible. As I have covered everything else I can currently think of, I thought it worth asking those that know better. I thought it a little harsh to say a Continental from this time frame is a pile! I will assume that you mean only because of the cones unless you tell me otherwise.
Hi Michael
I ask the question about neck angle as much out of curiosity than anything. When assembling a tricone from scratch I thought it would be interesting to know from where one starts before making adjustments(?)
I have come to realise from months of reading threads on this forum that you are a gentleman and have no want to trash any companies or persons workmanship, and as you have stated before no wish say negative things about guitars people own, quite right too. I hope my questions about Continental cones haven't made you feel you are being asked to do anything of that sort, I apologise if that's the way it might have been perceived. I am a little dyslexic and have to spent quite some time and care when reading or writing messages. There is a fine line between a justified critique and just trashing something which I know you have to deal with on this forum all the time. We are however all making judgements on what's good, what's not so good, what doesn't work when discussing the things we are passionate about are we not? No doubt as previously stated Continental cones are great now, how were they when they first start in comparison is my only thought before I buy some new ones. Thanks to all for your time and patience.