PUTW: The further adventures of...
Tom Loredo
Hi folks-
Seeing how my report of disappointing initial results with the PUTW
have been completely blown out of proportion in the previous thread,
I thought I'd try starting a new one with the results of my latest
experiments so we could have two hyperbolic threads going at once. 8-)
Before going on with results, I have to say I regret having made my
initial results public so casually. I had no idea a single post would
suddenly have people thinking "now everybody is sort of dissing the
PUTW" or leading fans of the PUTW to suddenly wonder "maybe I'm not
doing something right." I am just one person who is trying it (so far)
in one guitar. I do have extensive amplification experience, but as I
clearly stated in every post, these were initial impressions in a
limited test. All I could say for sure was that some earlier remarks
suggesting this was a quick and easy and universal solution are just
not on the money. I had hoped to keep this to myself until I knew my
final opinion, but when I saw folks making purchasing decisions based
on those earlier remarks, silence felt very uncomfortable. I may not know
my own final opinion about this technology, but I do know the situation
is more complicated than I had been led to believe from posts here. If
this decision of mine is causing David problems (it shouldn't!), then
David, please accept my public apology.
Now, on with the interesting stuff.
To rehash: David Enke sent me a #27 and #20 to try out for free. Very
kind of him, and he was also very kind when there was a problem with
the #27. He is going out of his way to make his customers (and his
freebie testers) happy. I've probably said that in nearly every
post remotely touching on PUTW, but it does deserve emphasizing.
His pickups currently ship with recommended placements clearly
described. I installed the #27 in my Olson SJ cutaway at the
recommended position (on the bridgeplate under the saddle), and used it
with an LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI as a preamp, as recommended here by
David and others. The tone was unusable. As I noted earlier, there are
good qualities to the tone: the attack of notes is nicer than on any
undersaddle pickup I've tried, and there are other aspects of it that
appeal to me (more below). I summed up that first impression by
describing the tone as resembling that of an internal mic, without as
much of the overwhelming low end you can get with an internal mic, but
still with the strange, "phasey" midrange boxiness you can often get
from an internal mic. By "phasey" I mean resembling the sound from a
flanger or chorus with the sweep rate at zero---a comb filter kind of
effect (perhaps having to do with the locations of nodes of the top
motion at different frequencies). Such filtering is unfortunately
not easy to fix with EQ.
Some earlier PUTW enthusiasts noted here that their tone was improved
by moving the pickup away from the bridge (the recommended location)
and into the lower bout area. I tried this, too. It made the problems
worse; the low end became booming and the top end unnatural.
This was an interior installation; I was so sure this pickup would work
simply and immediately based on earlier reports that I opted for a
"permanent" interior install right away. A mistake. This means that
every new placement requires removing strings, etc.. This is a slow
process! So at this point I decided to experiment further with the #20
on the *outside* of the guitar. I spent some time doing this, without
a lot of luck. The best sound I found at the time (but still
disappointing) was under the strings in front of the bridge, an
unfortunate location since it is over a brace, and thus not suitable
for interior installation. I also found the sound to vary very
dramatically with position.
At the same time, I had installed an EMF Entity Front End pickup/mic
system in the same instrument, so I could compare both of these new
technologies. More on the comparison below, but for now I'll just
note a non-subjective point of comparison: the PUTW signal has
low-level but noticable hum and hiss. It is *low* level, and not
noticable when you are playing. But in comparison the Entity
system (which is mixing signals from *two* sources) is almost
absolutely silent---not a trace of hum, and barely perceptible
increase in hiss when you unmute the signal at the board. I do not
believe this is a mark against the PUTW itself (though it could be).
I suspect the problem is the use of an external preamp. The Baggs DI
is a fine unit but not the quietest of preamps; I can believe the
hiss largely originates there. The hum is probably the result of
having a few feet of cable between the pickup and preamp (about
5 or 6 feet in this case). Such pickups require a very high
impedance load (which the Baggs provides). The downside of this is
that even a very small induced noise current can become audible
(thanks to Ohm's law---small current through large impedance=large
voltage). I suspect this minor noise/hum problem will vanish if
one uses the PUTW with an onboard preamp.
One last thing about the tests before I get to the newer results. I
did these tests with the signals going into a good mixer (Allen & Heath
MixWizard) and monitoring with headphones. This is not the optimum way
to test pickups. The optimum way is to *record* the signal and listen
back to the recording. This is the only way to know what the audience
will hear. If you are listening to the amplified sound through an amp
while you play, your perceptions are strongly distorted by the actual
acoustic tone you are hearing from the guitar, the sound of the room,
and by the feelings of the guitar vibrating against you. Some of this
can be eliminated by monitoring with good headphones; but headphone
listening has its own problems. In particular, even careful headphone
listening does not eliminate the guitar-against-the body issue. I
discovered this a couple years ago when I reviewed a bunch of internal
mics. I made one evaluation via phones and room listening, while
recording the sounds of 4 mics simultaneously with a 4-track.
Listening back to the recording I discovered some of my perceptions
were accurate (hearing 2 mics sound very similar), but others were off
(hearing what exactly was different about others). Unfortunately, it
is just not practical to be recording and playing back for hours trying
to find a good pickup locations, so I opted for the intermediate
solution of 'phone monitoring for my tests so far.
That's the situation as of yesterday afternoon. I must emphasize that
at this point I had already put much more time into this pickup than it
has ever taken me to get any other good technology up and running.
Yesterday afternoon David, finally back from AES, reported that he is
now finding that the recommended positions are often not good, and he
is updating his instruction material to reflect this. In particular,
he found that on a light-braced guitar at the AES show, the pickup
worked well near the tail block, not near the bridge. He also reported
that he has discovered that the brass lead attachment must be securely
fastened to the surface; if it is floating, he found volume is less
than half of normal and thus could affect signal-to-noise. Armed with
this new information, last night and this morning I put in another
2-1/2 hours of experimenting.
First, the brass lead attachment issue. As I noted earlier, I find the
adhesive PUTW provides to not be suitable for holding the brass well.
The tension in the cable (just from it being curled; I am not pulling
on the cable) has eventually pulled the brass off the guitar for all of
my installation attempts. For my #27 interior install, I used a bit of
a 3M poster mounting adhesive pad to hold the brass in place; it seems
to work fine. The kind of putty that McIntyre packages with their
pickups might also work for this. As for the volume issue, I am not
able to duplicate David's findings. Using the #20 on the outside of
the guitar, I find nearly identical volume with the brass stuck to the
guitar (with the PUTW adhesive) or with the brass floating. The tone
does change some, and it is clear the brass should be attached. But I
do not believe this has anything to do with my low level hiss problems
(not a big problem, as I said).
I tried the #20 in locations near the tailblock, since my Olson is
lightly braced. A very unnatural tone resulted, worse than the tone
near the bridge. I then went nuts for 2 hours trying locations all
over the place, including strange locations like the tip of the cutaway
and even the side of the guitar. It cannot be overemphasized: this
pickup is astonishingly sensitive to location!!!! At some locations,
if you move it just the width of the sensing strip, the tone will
change dramatically. At a given location, if you rotate it 90 degrees,
the tone will change dramatically (I am not sure whether this is
because of the rectangular shape of the #20, or because the material
has anisotropic response; it looks like PVDF material, but I could not
find separate stress, strain, or coupling coefficients for the
longitudinal and transverse directions of this material, so I don't
know if it has a more sensitive axis).
Before I go on, let me explain why I was spending so much time with
this. It is not just because of all the fanfare the PUTW has been
getting on RMMGA. It's because at most locations there was *something*
I really liked in the tone, albeit usually with lots of stuff I didn't
like. In particular, I had the B-band part of the Entity system going
solo in another mixer channel and could switch back and forth. While I
like the B-band much better than other undersaddle pickups, it is far
from perfect in my opinion. I seem to be almost alone here in not
finding it suitable without a mic. To me, it shares a significant
problem with other undersaddle pickups: the attacks of notes are not
natural. They sound too abrupt and harsh (I consider this part of the
"quack" sound people complain about, though others seem to have a
different definition of "quack"). Even the "ends" of notes are
unnatural, in the sense that if I suddenly dampen the moving strings,
the sound just seems to die too quickly. Also, I feel that undersaddle
pickups make the individual strings sound *too* distinct. I realize
there is a trend in such pickups to go for individual saddles, etc.
(e.g., RMC and the new Baggs pickup). I think this is the *opposite*
direction from what I want to hear---I want to hear how it all blends
together. Finally, there is a "flatness" to undersaddle tones (even
the B-band) that I find disappointing. Adding a bit of internal mic,
in my opinion, helps with all these things. I have thus always used my
B-band in a dual-source (or 3-source) setup, and have recommended it
that way.
The reason I kept pushing ahead with the PUTW is that it had some
elements in its tone that I miss from undersaddles and thus rely on an
internal mic for. It has a natural attack, and gives you a sense of
dimension---of the box being there. In most positions, though, it had
either that phasey excess boxiness I mentioned, or a very unnatural top
end, or a sweet top end but a boomy bottom end, etc.. Also, for any
position not right next to the bridge, motions of my arm at the edge of
the top (i.e., where you would put a Pearse armrest!) would change the
tone. In fact, I could get a credible "wah wah" effect by strumming a
chord and moving my arm away and toward the guitar through, say, 20
degrees. The change in tone was far more dramatic than anything that
could be heard acoustically. A cool effect, but not a very desirable
property of a pickup. Clearly, this pickup is extraordinarily
sensitive to details of the modes of the top motion.
11 pm was approaching (quiet time in my apartment building), and I
tried one last position: On the bass side of the lower bout, right
near the edge of the guitar. Looking at the front of the guitar, it's
at about 7:30 on the clock. It is also oriented radially (the longer
side pointing toward the bridge). Here I was finally getting a lot of
the bits and pieces I liked from various other positions, with less of
what I disliked (though the excess boxiness was still there a bit). I
fussed with position a bit (rotation or translation by just an inch
screws it up), and then started playing with EQ. By cutting a chunk at
about 150 Hz and another at about 4 or 5 kHz, I was getting something
that had some very nice qualities, though still more of that toy guitar
boxiness than I wanted to hear. Switching back and forth with the
plain B-band, I found myself increasingly unhappy with each! Hearing
the nice attack and dimension in the PUTW made me unhappy with the
harsh attack and flatness of the B-band. Hearing the
boxiness/honkiness of the PUTW made appreciate the evenness of the
B-band tone. I dialed in the mic part of the Entity system, and as I
noted in an earlier post, quickly got a tone that I was fairly happy
with. But switching to the PUTW there were still qualities in the PUTW
that I found myself missing in the Entity sound.
So I did the obvious next thing---I dialed out the Entity mic, and used
the PUTW (via the mixer) in place of the mic signal. Nice tone!!!! It
is by no means "my guitar, only louder" (whenever anyone says that, my
skepticism is heightened). But my initial impression is that it is a
significant improvement over using B-band + mic. This morning I
continued fooling with the pickups this way, both with headphone
listening and through my PA, and I continue to like this tone. I have
not done a careful feedback test, but I can say that B-band + mic at my
preferred setting was fairly easy to get feedback from (albeit
louder than what I would usually monitor at). On the other hand,
B-band + PUTW would not feed back in these tests (I didn't push the
faders up too high, though---it was early in the morning!).
My *tentative* conclusions (since so many of you seem to want to draw
hasty conclusions here): First, the PUTW is drastically more sensitive
to placement than other top transducers. In particular, I have a
McIntyre (smallbody model) and put it in many of the same places I was
trying the PUTW. The McIntyre tone did not change nearly as
dramaticall with position (it also was not as promising in any of those
positions; I find it has a "veiled" quality to the top end when used on
the top of the guitar, though I hasten to add this is not its
recommended mounting position). It is clear from comparison of my
experience with both the PUTW recommendations and the experiences of
others reported here that there is no universally good position for
this pickup. If you are going to give one a try, expect to spend
serious time experimenting.
Second, I was not able to find a really good tone using just a PUTW.
But I am not happy with *any* single transducer tone I have ever heard
on my guitar (or anyone else's, with the exception of the tone Martin
Simpson gets from a Highlander in his Sobell; there are exceptions to
every rule!).
Finally, and most positively, I hear from a properly placed PUTW many
qualities that I miss in tones from undersaddle transducers. Its tone
resembles that of an internal mic. My initial impression is thus that
the PUTW may be an ideal substitute for an internal mic in a two-source
setup, offering many of the tonal benefits of a mic, but without the
same level of sensitivity to feedback. Indeed, its relative
insensitivity to feedback means you can have its mic-like qualities at
a higher level in your two-source mix than would be possible with an
internal mic. Also, as with a mic, it is great for picking up
percussive sounds from tapping on the top. The only down side to this
is that no two-source preamp that I know of have a high impedance input
for the mic channel, so you cannot optimally use the PUTW with any of
the popular off-the-rack "blender" type preamps. But if the PUTW is
truly successful used this way, I don't think it will be long before
such preamps appear. 8-)
Of course, this all leaves open the issue of whether, with proper EQ,
combining two PUTW pickups could achieve equivalent results. I don't
know anything about this possibility yet.
And what you find with *your* guitar and *your* ears could be entirely
different!
Well, there's more to do before I reach my final opinion on this
technology, but I hope this puts a more positive spin on things for
some of you.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
Bob Dorgan
Interesting.
One thing I've found that is common to your findings, is that the pick
up has potential. I can't put my finger on the term I'm looking for, but
there are elements that I really like about this thing.
Bob Dorgan
Bill Chandler
anyone who missed the post can catch it here.
Just a note--my comment on "not doing something right" was meant as
tongue-in-cheek, and certainly not meant to cause any unpleasantness.
The kind of painstaking research you have posted about here is, I
think, invaluable in the course of learning to apply these things. I
certainly appreciate the tremendous amount of effort you have
documented here, and I hope that this information can be helpful to
others out there who may be struggling with these issues.
Bill Chandler
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:43:09 -0400, Tom Loredo
<lor...@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu> brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
Bill Chandler
...bc...
David
"Bob Dorgan" <d77...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:39C918...@epix.net...
After tearing my hair out, and loosing many nights of sleep over this, I've
come to some interesting discoveries as to why our pickups haven't performed
as well as expected on some steel string guitars.
Structurally, the lightness of the soundboard and the size and mass of the
bridge plate has an effect on which element model would be the best. The
majority of our testing and that of our customers was done on Martins,
Guilds, Gibsons, and other guitars based off of standard X brace designs and
perhaps built a little on the heavy side compared to more modern designs.
On these earlier instruments, the pickups work great, and the players that
have recommended them are indeed not hallucinating.
The primary movements on these guitars are a rocking motion of the bridge
front to back.
The newer breed of designs are quite different in a number of ways, and the
application of the pickups needs to be altered accordingly.
A lot of modern luthiers (Collings, Taylor, Olson, etc.) are moving towards
thinner soundboards, smaller, lighter bridge plates, and taller, thinner
braces. The placement of the crossover point of the X brace has moved closer
to the bridge. The effect is that rather than the bridge rocking front to
back as much, on most of these guitars, the bridge rocks side to side like a
see-saw over the mid-point of the bridge.
When a 2 1/2" #27 is placed behind the bridge or on the bridge plate on one
of these instruments, as one side of the bridge goes up, it produces a
positive signal in that half of the film. At the same time, the other side
of the bridge is going down, and produces a negative signal. These signals
cancel each other out, and give a low output level with a lot of phase
cancellation. The result is a thin, weak signal that sounds 'tubby'
The solution is to go with a model #20 (5/8" X 3/4"), and place it to one
side of the center. The tone will differ between the bass side of the treble
side, but the exact placement is not nearly as critical as with the larger
#27. The sound is much tighter and more resonant, without sounding 'edgy or
strident'.
Because many builders are using thinner soundboards, the larger elements
(#27, #30) placed on the outside of the soundboard (behind the bridge) have
too many un-supported areas under them and sound 'boxy' and are much more
prone to feedback.
There, I feel better now.
Part of our guarantee is that when a particular response is communicated to
us, we will recommend swapping out to a different sized element. Now we are
adding to that by recommending a different type of placement for guitars
built more in the modern fashion.
I hope this helps.
Anyone with questions or who is experiencing any of the above
particularities is invited to call or write to talk about the best method to
insure a completely satisfactory experience.
Best to you all,
David Enke
Pick-up the World
pic...@rmi.net
cjp...@my-deja.com
Just read David's post and had a pretty good feeling. Some of us
said the PUTW was great and there was practically a mob forming. Whoa
back off we have Guilds and Martins and other heavy built guitars. Hey
it's not our fault some of you bought those wimpy skimpy guitars.:-)
David Enke is absolutely unbelievable in my mind. You can't get any
more out front then he does or try to please his customers. He has a new
product and it works great in good guitars.<snicker>
Charles Park
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ch...@san.rr.com
I missed something important. What in the four-letter-word is a PUTW????
And Tom, do **not** tell me it's a new way to give to the fund ...
remember I have a bathroom & a guitar to pay off first.
Unless I can find some sucker to buy the bathroom from me.
csj
Bob Dorgan
> Before you buy.
David's theory makes some sense.
I'll try the PUTW on the exterior of my 73 D18. It's built like a tank.
I'm still not convinced that the pickup won't work well on a lightly
braced guitar.
Bob Dorgan
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
>cjp...@my-deja.com wrote:
Bob--Are you using the #27? That's the element I'm using on my Guild
12-string. (Yep. She's braced like a tank, and would probably
survive a direct tactical nuclear strike. And I've got a bit of extra
upholstery my self, thankyouverymuch...)
Charles--maybe we need to start
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic.badass.dreadnought.neener.neener.neener
or something?
B-{)}
Bill Chandler
following, and served it to the group:
>Ok, I haven't been reading the news group all that regulary & obviously
>I missed something important. What in the four-letter-word is a PUTW????
>
>And Tom, do **not** tell me it's a new way to give to the fund ...
>remember I have a bathroom & a guitar to pay off first.
>
>Unless I can find some sucker to buy the bathroom from me.
>
>csj
Susan--It's the generally used acronym for the Pick-up the World
acoustic pickup system. (And it has absolutely nothing to do with
Norman's predilection for carnal canine pleasures, either. I hope...)
There's been a bit of discussion recently on problems some folks have
had in getting a good sound with this system. Charles Park tried one,
sang its praises, and I got one for my Guild D25-12 12-string, and am
totally blown away by the sound, and have been babbling incessantly
about my happiness with it. (That is, until the nice lady in the
white dress shows up with those neato pills again...)
Tom Loredo posted a very thorough description of his experiments with
the system, and his less than optimum results. Then Ken Starr showed
up as special prosecutor, and the whole damned thing just went
straight down the crapper (note how we got that back to the
bathroom?). David Enke (pic...@rmi.net) is the guy who builds and
sells them, and he just weighed in with some more technical info.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Grandma keeps beating off the Indians,
and they keep right on coming...
Bob Dorgan
>
> Bob--Are you using the #27? That's the element I'm using on my Guild
> 12-string. (Yep. She's braced like a tank, and would probably
> survive a direct tactical nuclear strike. And I've got a bit of extra
> upholstery my self, thankyouverymuch...)
>
Yep. It's a #27, and I had a better time of it last night.
I took it off of the Breedlove 12, and put it on the exterior of my
Goodall.
I never did find a spot on the Breedlove that was as good as the UST
that's installed in that guitar.
Now here's a funny thing:
I have never had good luck with USTs by Fishman. The quack was not
acceptable to me. But that Breedlove 12 came with a Fishman in it, and
it amplifies very well, and requires minimal EQ to get an acceptable
tone out of it. The quack is still there, but it's not an attention
grabbing sound.
I was hoping the PUTW would alleviate it all together.
The Goodall has a B-band dual source and is a much heavier braced
guitar.
One of the mysteries to me is how James Goodall makes such a responsive
guitar and still builds them so solidly.
If David's theory is correct the Goodall should be much easier to find a
sweet spot on.
If not, we'll move it to the Martin D18.
David and I have corresponded and between his email and his posts I'm
learning something about SBTs I didn't know.
FWIW, Howard Emerson uses Fishman SBTs and an internal mic and his live
sound is the best I've ever heard. No contest.
He plugs into the Fishman pro performer, and that thing is a killer amp.
Bob Dorgan
Bob Dorgan
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
>Bill Chandler wrote:
>
>>
>> Bob--Are you using the #27? That's the element I'm using on my Guild
>> 12-string. (Yep. She's braced like a tank, and would probably
>> survive a direct tactical nuclear strike. And I've got a bit of extra
>> upholstery my self, thankyouverymuch...)
>>
>
>Yep. It's a #27, and I had a better time of it last night.
>I took it off of the Breedlove 12, and put it on the exterior of my
>Goodall.
>I never did find a spot on the Breedlove that was as good as the UST
>that's installed in that guitar.
>Now here's a funny thing:
>I have never had good luck with USTs by Fishman. The quack was not
>acceptable to me. But that Breedlove 12 came with a Fishman in it, and
>it amplifies very well, and requires minimal EQ to get an acceptable
>tone out of it. The quack is still there, but it's not an attention
>grabbing sound.
That's something I've been learning a little more about recently. I
have a Fishman Acoustic Matrix Hot in my Guild D16-M 6-string. This
replaced a Shadow stick-on piezo that I had been using, and hating,
for probably 10 years or so. It was a feedback factory, and I moved
it all over the inside of that guitar. Nothing, but NOTHING, would
make that damned thing sound good.
Last year, I got the Fishman on sale from MF, and put it in, and was
just thrilled--until I tried the PUTW. The old pickup in that guitar
had been SO bad, that I think damn near anything would have sounded
better. And the Fishman is certainly better. But now that I've tried
the PUTW, I can actually hear the quack that everyone ascribes to
UST's. It's not a terrible thing--but I can certainly hear it now.
My wife even heard the difference--and understands why I now want to
replace the Fishman with another PUTW...but of course, that has to
wait for a while...
>I was hoping the PUTW would alleviate it all together.
Well, different guitars...different placements...I'm using the PUTW on
my Guild 12-string, and that's certainly a tank. Have you talked to
David about a different element? (Or did I miss you mentioning that
elsewhere, and I should just go get another cup of coffee...?)
>The Goodall has a B-band dual source and is a much heavier braced
>guitar.
>One of the mysteries to me is how James Goodall makes such a responsive
>guitar and still builds them so solidly.
>If David's theory is correct the Goodall should be much easier to find a
>sweet spot on.
>If not, we'll move it to the Martin D18.
Wait--Isn't this the one you were trying to palm off in another
thread? Or what was that--something about a donation to the
Fund...oh, never mind...
>David and I have corresponded and between his email and his posts I'm
>learning something about SBTs I didn't know.
There certainly seems to be a lot more to it than what I've run into.
When I installed this pickup in my 12-string, it took me about 3/4
hour total from taking off the strings to tuning her back up and
plugging in--and the longest part was reaming out the hole for the
endpin jack. David's remarks led me to believe that the #27 is pretty
much designed exactly for the kind of guitar I put it in--a
heavily-braced dread.
Obviously different guitars take different approaches. I got lucky.
>FWIW, Howard Emerson uses Fishman SBTs and an internal mic and his live
>sound is the best I've ever heard. No contest.
>He plugs into the Fishman pro performer, and that thing is a killer amp.
I've heard of those--isn't that the one they just discontinued a while
back?
And once again, I bet that has a lot to do with the fingers of the
player--Howard's playing just blows me away. His fingers should be
national treasures. I bet his guitar wouldn't sound so good if I was
playing it...
Frank Wiewandt
> Yep. It's a #27, ...
>>> Huge Snip <<<
> If David's theory is correct the Goodall should be much easier to find a
> sweet spot on.
> If not, we'll move it to the Martin D18.
If you do move it to the D18, I'd appreciate your comments. I've got a '73
myself, & have been considering the PUTW to replace the Rare Earth Humbucker
I'm using now.
Thanks,
Frank Wiewandt
Frank Wiewandt
> The newer breed of designs are quite different in a number of ways, and
the
> application of the pickups needs to be altered accordingly.
Where do Larrivees fit in, older or newer breed? Spacifically I have a
D-03-12 & am considering your PU for it. It seems lighter in build than my
Martin D18, but I'm not much of an expert. :-(
Thanks,
Frank Wiewandt
Steve Hawkins
I'm kind of curious about that myself since I own a L-09. Larrivees are
lightly built and symmetrically braced.
Steve Hawkins
Tor Arntsen
>Ok, I haven't been reading the news group all that regulary & obviously
>I missed something important. What in the four-letter-word is a PUTW????
Pick-Up-The-World.. there's an ad in the latest AG.
>And Tom, do **not** tell me it's a new way to give to the fund ...
>remember I have a bathroom & a guitar to pay off first.
>
>Unless I can find some sucker to buy the bathroom from me.
No way, Fed-Ex'ing it over to this side of the pond would kill me!
-Tor (my old shower will have to do)