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.
Would it then be possible to send the info wirelessly (sp?) to the amp? Seems kind of cool.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
The info can already be sent wirelessly through the amp via VHF and UHF.
Ever heard of a wireless microphone? Same concept, except connected to the pickups on the guitar.
xxx straight edge xxx
They also go into why they chose cat5. It has something to do with packet and jitter control.
Apparently it's compatible with all existing ethernet devices. So in theory you could connect any kind of tranciever you wish. Want Fiber? Just get a tranciever, want wireless? Just buy a tranciever. Want to route it across the internet through a tunnel.. Holy sheep shit batman!
I know a lot of bands, the worst problem they have is finding a studio to practice in. You could set up a "virtual studio" just by tunneling and building VPN's between their houses.
Things like latency could be transformed into delay effects..
Anyways, sounds really cool. I'm gonna post the story on my site and try and get an interview.
First of all: Wireless isn't getting nowhere near the transmission speeds you achieve with a cable.
If you want fast and realtime communication, you also get 2 extra conversion steps while using wireless transmission. Extra conversion is extra delay.
And reliability is a factor too. Wireless transceivers for analog audio signals have a bad reputation for reliability and audio qualitiy, and you should avoid them until you have the means to invest the monetary value of, say a medium sized car, into it.
No guitarist is going to ever touch that equipment if it fails him/her onstage, ever...
also the analog to digital converters would have to be really good. High quality digital studios a good ten thousand dollars per channel for d/a converters. I doubt the average guitarist will spend an extra ten thousand dollars for their guitar just to maintain this quality. So. these guitars will be outfitted with cheap converters, destroying any chance for quality sound. Cheap converters add many artifacts to appear that are not musical. analog does of course add artifacts of their own, but these artifacts tend to be more musical and pleasing to our ear. ie:tube amps create a pleasing distortion when pushed sufficiently by the amp. But the digital artifacts are generally displeasing. physiologicaly. Also cheap converters have greater problems with things like jitter. Jitter is a phenomenom that occurs when the a/d converter is not perfectly in sync with the "system clock". this also causes artifacts to appear. I'd reccommend you let the studio do the d/a converting, as they probably invested some money into this very important component in digital recording. Guitars like this will not improve the quality of recordings for the poor artist, just when it is becoming apparent that we as artists, must throw off the yoke of the recording industry and make our own recordings. own our own music, and distribut it ourselves. etc.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
First, I wish them well, but the current Gibson management has a history of failed and ill-supported attempts to make new technology work in the music industry.
Also, Gibson's shotgun-like litigious actions within the music industry within the past decade have caused the music industry to put little faith in its supporting a technology standard of *any* kind. The past actions of its current management will make music instrument manufacturers think twice (or more)before they adopt or even license Gibson technology.
Some history:
1) Gibson completely blew their opportunity as once-owners of the Oberheim name (which they inherited as part of a purchase). Poorly-defined and ill-marketed products killed the Oberheim brand; meddling by ownership didn't help...(recently the Oberheim name returned to its rightful owner, Tom Oberheim, who is nicely rebuilding the brand).
2) Gibson bought Zeta Violin (a very innovative manufacturer of electronic violins and basses), and with it the services of the gifted engineer who who started Zeta. They had this engineer cobble together a MIDI substitute called ZIPPY. This at a time when MIDI was just getting a head of steam up. Gibson's ownership wanted to replace MIDI and collect license fees. Forget about helping to nurse a just-getting-off-the-ground standard, or MIDI). Talk about bad timing. ZIPPY died, and the engineer had a hand in regaining Zeta (a fine company these days).
3) Next was Gibson's infamous purchase of Opcode Systems, a few years back. Opcode was a primary manufacturer of music software and hardware at the time - one of the best. They created the OMS standard, which the Mac music community was widely dependent on. They promised Opcode's then-owner an opportunity to start a little R&D Group and come up with a few new things. The whole thing died in an acrimonious lawsuit, and in the offing, Gibson destroyed Opcode, and OMS. What a waste.
4) Unrelated to technology (at least computer technology) is Gibson's recent purchase of the once-renowned Baldwin Piano Company. Gibson has chosen to take even this famous music industry name, and make it a laughingstock. At this year's NAMM (National Association of Music Manufacturers) show they presented Baldwin pianos in gaudy, bright colors with graffiti-like drawings on them (for instance, one bright yellow grand had a desert scene painted on it with a Hummer riding across the desert floor in the the background - unbelievable!). I can see doing this to one piano, but the whole damn line? The instruments are laughable, and a blight on the once-reknowned Baldwin name.
5)Gibson is run like a personal playpen and funhouse by current management, who is out of touch with market reality (and a few others); however, Gibson has good, dedicated people. For their sake I hope this technology cathes on.
6)Other companies will be coming forward with technologies like this, and others. Let's wait and see if Gibson maintains its consistency in things having to do with technology, and screws this one up.
Certainly, if this technology did catch on, *any* music instrument manufacturer licensing it would have to be *very* wary of Gibson's current management's penchant to sue fast and hard for any real or even (and especially) perceived violation of licensing or other agreements. This company is vulture-like when it comes to the law. Gibson is a great example of a company who is purchased by a management with a few crazy ideas and a lot of money. They come in, buy a well-established company with good products and dedicated peopl,e and make it a personal plaything. Gibson, and the music industry deserve better.
Doesn't this just sound like one of those famous quotes waiting to be reused over and over again in 20 years time - like the "there is a total world market for 5 computers" and "rock and roll is a fad, Mr.Epstein".
(Please don't reply with the Bill Gates 640K quote - he never said that)
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Utilitiding power-over-ethernet means that you no longer have to worry about dub batteries. That's a huge saving, and the reason that phantom power (essentially a power-over-mic-cable technology) exists in all mixing desks.
With wireless, you have to worry about power too. For a large stage show, you assign a tech to deal with that, and kick his ass if you run out of juice.
For people who arn't the Rolling Stones, U2 etc, power and signal in one cable is a good thing.
Additionally, cable gives a dependable signal. Note that this is not TCP/IP over ethernet, but a completly different protocol. What happens when you lose bandwith in your wireless connect? You'd get a click in the sound. That's speaker-wreckingly-ears-bleedingly unacceptable. 802.11 doesn't have badnwidth guarentes, whiles cable does (de facto, if not de jure - I don't know the ethernet spec well enough).