Carbon Fiber Sharing Thread

[RP]

My "collection" is subject to change so to update what I own and can share:

Emerald X20
Emerald Amicus

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by RP

My "collection" is subject to change so to update what I own and can share:

Emerald X20
Emerald Amicus

Good thought, Randy.

I also currently have:

Emerald X20 fan-fret
Emerald Amicus

I'm in a south-west suburb of Minneapolis, and happy to get together with anyone interested in trying either or both.

[RP]

Let's keep this and Earl's thread https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=600568 at the forefront of the minds of those who want to try out carbon fiber guitars...

[Earl49]

Yeah. It was mildly amusing a couple of days ago when BigAl80 posted about wanting to try an Emerald in the DFW area an there was an Ambassador thread just four lines down by Jim Whelan specifically mentioning Dallas.

If we could only get our two threads combined, or at least have a test drive "sticky" for the CF room.....

[Markcarl]

Spearfish, South Dakota

Rainsong WS-1000 Classic
Rainsong Al Petteway Signature
Rainsong 25th Anniversary
Rainsong CH-OM1000NS

Emerald X20
Emerald Virtuo

[Emile640]

Cumberland, RI (hour southwest of Boston or 20 minutes north of Providence)

Rainsong Concert OM shorty with an Anthem

[Carl1Mayer]

I have a self built carbon fiber archtop I wouldn’t mind letting folks try (though it wouldn’t be very comparable to commercial options)and also wouldn’t mind some constructive feedback. Build thread/pics below. I’m in the Richmond VA area.

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=674757

[Earl49]

Bump to the top since we cannot get this made into a sticky for the CF room.

[Earl49]

Time to bump this up again.

[brainfertilizer]

Unfortunately, I sold my CA Blade.

But I still have my CA Cargo, CA GXi, Emerald X20 nylon, Emerald X10 steel, Emerald X10 slimline nylon, Journey OC660, and I just added a Rainsong S-DR1000.

So you can try these out for comparison and see which company fits your preferences best.

[tbeltrans]

Why do we have two of these threads? I realize that there is a limit to the length of a thread, but neither of these has reached that point yet.

If we are going to have multiple of this thread, maybe we should take a page from the book reading and TV viewing threads in the Open Mic section, and call all these by the same name with a "Part I", "Part II", etc. so people will see they are a continuation of the same thing.

Tony

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

Why do we have two of these threads? I realize that there is a limit to the length of a thread, but neither of these has reached that point yet.

If we are going to have multiple of this thread, maybe we should take a page from the book reading and TV viewing threads in the Open Mic section, and call all these by the same name with a "Part I", "Part II", etc. so people will see they are a continuation of the same thing.

Tony

I suspect it’s because we had two threads running in pretty much the same direction, and both originators feel some sense of ownership.

It would make much more sense for there to be a single thread, but I suppose that would mean starting all over again - which, in the absence of some concensus, would result in three of them

[Earl49]

Tony, I started one but upon taking a two-year sabbatical (burnout) from AGF it fell to page 8 or even further. RP started another one later. Periodically folks have started a "where can I try" thread because these are not visible. Since we cannot get the mods to make either one a "sticky" in the CF room, it is up to us to manually keep them on the front page to be seen. I'd prefer that only one thread exist, and don't really care which. Of course, it would be better that it be a sticky that would always remain in plain view. But what do I know?

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by David Eastwood

I suspect itÂ’s because we had two threads running in pretty much the same direction, and both originators feel some sense of ownership.

It would make much more sense for there to be a single thread, but I suppose that would mean starting all over again - which, in the absence of some concensus, would result in three of them

In the world of MIDI (i.e. synthesizers and other electronic music devices), the standard connector has long been a 5 pin DIN plug and socket. That has long been a standard that all manufacturers used. In more recent years, as components have gotten smaller and SMT (surface mount technology) has become the standard means of mounting silicon on boards, the boxes have gotten smaller and in particular, thinner to the point that 1/8" TRS plugs and jacks are being used because there isn't room for something the size of a DIN plug. However, we now have Type A and Type B "standards" because two companies simultaneously introduced products to the market, each having their own wiring definition instead of getting together to create a standard.

The MIDI 1.0 standard came about through the mutual efforts of three companies: Yamaha, Roland, and Sequential Circuits back in the early to mid 80s. Creating a single standard lays open a large market that would have otherwise been divided and never gained momentum. The MIDI 2.0 standard still hasn't gained traction, partially because MIDI 1.0 still works well in most cases, but also because the original collaborative spirit just doesn't seem to happen like it did back then.

Now, if you buy a Roland product, you will be using Type A 1/8" to 5 pin DIN cables and if you buy Arturia or Polyend, you will be using Type B 1/8" to 5 pin DIN cables. Other manufacturers are likewise using Type A or Type B and it is not uncommon to see posts in forums asking why folks can't get their gear to talk.

Not sure why I went into that history lesson, but if anybody is interested, there it is. You might have guessed that aside from guitar, this is where my musical interests lie. Fortunately, in the Twin Cities, there is quite an active electronic music community.

There is a saying in engineering that standards are great because there are so many to choose from.

When I posted in one of these threads an update on my own collection of CF guitars, I considered whether to likewise post in the other thread. I decided not to, but the thought crossed my mind that somebody looking to try a CF guitar in my area might not see my post because s/he was looking in the other thread.

One possibility would be to start another thread series, taking a page from how folks are doing that in the Open Mic section for the reading and watching threads and in the first post introducing the thread and explaining how it works, put links to the two existing threads. That ought to consolidate the threads as best can be done under the circumstances. I think a consolidated series of threads (i.e. all having the same name and "Part I", "Part II", etc.) would be easier to find for most people, but without being sticky, we all would have to post something in them to keep them visible as Earl49 has been doing.

As to Earl49's point, I have read of his attempts to get the moderators to make a "sticky" of one or the other "where to try CF" threads. I don't understand why the reluctance to make a sticky thread of something this important.

Thanks,

Tony

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Earl49

Tony, I started one but upon taking a two-year sabbatical (burnout) from AGF it fell to page 8 or even further. RP started another one later. Periodically folks have started a "where can I try" thread because these are not visible. Since we cannot get the mods to make either one a "sticky" in the CF room, it is up to us to manually keep them on the front page to be seen. I'd prefer that only one thread exist, and don't really care which. Of course, it would be better that it be a sticky that would always remain in plain view. But what do I know?

Would it help if a bunch of us from the CF section of this site individually asked the moderators to make a sticky of one of these CF sharing threads?

If so, then the sticky should be a new consolidated thread that has links to the two currently existing threads for reference and continuity.

Thanks,

Tony