Slashdot Mirror
Gibson to Embed Guitars with Ethernet
caseyuw writes "Gibson is planning to roll out their Magic this year with the delivery of guitars using Cat 5 instead of analog cables to connect instruments and amplifiers. The debate over the quality of digital vs analog signal processing is not new, but using a 'Magic' Les Paul would force you entirely into the digital domain." We mentioned this last year, but the above article has much more information.
This idea is just plain silly. First, consider who is creating this standard? Who is promoting this standard? Is this in any way necessary? Are there any benefits that can't be realized with current technology?
It is my belief that simply adding "digital" to the standard guitar design does little more than claiming my shiny red bicycle runs on java. In fact there may be more immediate negative consequences than positive ones.
The guitar pickups, as far as I can tell, will still be analog. Thus, every guitar must have an A/D converter in the body. Having digital output will limit you to digital signal processors, unless you first convert back from D/A. You will find countless arguments supporting analog sound quality, I won't even attempt to address that issue. However, what quality do you think the onboard converter in the guitar will be? I doubt (considering size, power, and cost constraints). that it will even begin to approach that of a hide end DSP effects box. Unless of course these are meant prohibitively expensive play toy gadgets. Not to mention these prohibitively expensive gadets will only work with other prohibitively expensive gadgets that are compatible with the same format. Using a guitar to control other devices is not a novel idea, there are plenty of midi conversion kits. With a little technical know how, you could replace the knobs already on your guitar with others to send midi signals (providing you have the appropriate card and install a midi output). The author of the article took a naive view of midi, making it sound like a total failure. Although it might not be the most beautiful solution for communication between instruments, it is successful. You'll be hard pressed to find any quality synthesizers or processing gear that don't utilize the MIDI standard. You'll be hard pressed to find any entry level synthesizers or processors that don't use the standard. A qoute also appears in the article that all instruments and related equipment will be digital in ten years. You'd expect synthesizers to be the first to bring about this revolution, considering the construction. I suppose that is why MOOG is still such a powerful name! The article seems little more than an ill informed response to the intersection of two fields that the author fails to comprehend as a whole.
I mean, Ethernet isn't really designed for real-time connections. I realize that it can work when you get to the really high speeds, but wouldn't that be expensive.
I guess what I'm wondering is, why did they chose Ethernet rather then Fire wire, or even S/PDIF? Do you need to use special switching hardware that insures real-time communication? What about packet loss?
Personally, I'd like it if everything used Ethernet, it really does seem to be the most convenient form of networking out there. Hopefully all the work put in by Gibson will be adopted and we'll be able to plug our stereo, TV, VCR and everything directly into our home gigabit LAN. It would make things a lot easier, that's for sure.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
I've been a musician all my life and I'll tell you right now what seperates the really good players from everyone else is PRACTICE, not gadgets.
I think probably the marketing division staged a successful coup over at Gibson.
The gadget freaks are gonna love this though, so I can't blame Gibson for trying a new way to bring in some cash.
Someone posting something about the "purists... blah blah blah blah"
Excuse me? Purists my *ss.
There's a real reason that the best guitarists lust and drool over 90 year old technology: It is because it is impossible for solid state electronics, no matter how tweaked, sampled and modified, to duplicate the odd harmonics the come by nature out of the plasma in a hot vacuum tube.
Musicians care about *sound* and nothing else. If the best sound came out of a old transistor radio running FreeBSD modified with DDR ram and put in a hollowed out cardboard box, they would use that.
I'm a violinist. Once upon a time I thought that all the hoopla surrounding Strat instruments was just complete BS and that with the right combo of tech, lutherian technique and materials, that the sound could be reproduced. And then I heard one in person.
Perhaps another problem is that lots of *engineers* work for the instrument manufacturers, and they stare at an oscilloscope hooked up to a tube and think "it can't be so hard to reproduce that" as well as "I need to do something new around here to keep my job!"
Now I have heard some solid state amps that sound pretty good. But they still don't come close to tubes, even after all these years (40+?) of trying.
And if you personally cannot hear the difference, might I suggest you work on training your ear a bit better? The difference is glaring to folks with well trained musical ears.
There's one very good reason to choose cat5 over wireless- no matter what protocol you use, your wireless guitar would be working at a radio frequency that can be duplicated, and therefor messed with. One of the easiest to mess up would be 802.11b- it runs at the same frequency as many microwaves, cordless phones and other appliances. Can you imagine being a guitarist on stage at a show at a small venue, and all of a sudden the owner of the place gets a phone call that effectively stops the show? Other protocols share frequencies with less other things, but can still be interrupted easily by anyone who really wants to sabotage a show.
I am a guitarist who "hates digital," but not this kind of digital. I buy analog effects, amps, and synths because I appreciate the sound they create. I feel that the sound of a screaming analog filter or an overdriven tube amp is not something that has been reproduced accurately in the digital world. I find these analog sounds quite desirable.
However, the "sound" that an audio cable imparts to music (in the form of hum and interference) is not something I find desirable. In this case, the digital version is superior to the analog version.
I'm sure there are a few extreme-odd-audiophile-luddite musicians who don't want any analog to digital conversion happenning at all between their instrument and their ears. This, of course, means that they can't put their music on compact disc, which is the de facto music distribution standard (or at least was). I find this attitude wholly unreasonable and impractical. Musicians who eschew the DAT, the mp3, and the compact disc must, in my estimation, be in the minority.
Most musicians, I think, are like me. I might prefer a quirky old tape delay or analog phaser to their digital equivalents, but, at the end of the day, I know my music gets fed into my computer at 24bit-96kHz digital. I'm an analog fan, but not a snob; I switch to digital when it's better/more practical.