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.
Let's DOS the basist.
Would it then be possible to send the info wirelessly (sp?) to the amp? Seems kind of cool.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Easy, quit smokin pot and it's pretty simple.
Firewire currently tops out at 800Mb/second, and is a relatively new techology. Cat5e can handle 1 GB/sec, and has been around in its current incarnation for quite a few years.
Also, the max length of a FireWire cable is 4.5 meters , while Ethernet can do 100 meters before needing a repeater.
Not sure how much bandwidth a gee-tar takes up, but I'd bet that cable length was the deciding factor in this design.
...I'll be hit with a classmates.com ad every time I strum G#?
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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...
Give me a Cisco Stack!!!!
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.
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.
Q: How do you get a bassist off your porch?
A: Pay him for the pizza!
(...sorry)
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
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.
With these new "MAGIC" components included, I am curious on how long it will take for the following things to happen:
...... Firewood
1. MS announcing an embedded version of NT for the Gibson.
2. The developers of products such as Soundforge,Cakewalk *& Protools get preloaded in package deals.
3. Slashdot features an article showing how easy it is to Mod the gibson with the latest Gforce card & monitor, mouse & keyboard connectors.
4. Not satisfied with only supplying the OS for the guitar, MS purchases Gibson.
5. All songs after this will begin with that happening and eternal windows startup wav file.
6. Slashdot post an article featuring the first Linux build for it.
7. A custom neck mod made with a slot for scanning your guitar tab in. (Embedded LED's light up green on frets and turn red on wrong notes)
8. The first Worm makes its rounds looking for predefined sequences and modifies the output based on it. (Ygnwie capped at 12 notes a minute or possibly the always unheard Church guitarist will have their volume adjusted to an audible level)
9. A small number of freshly networked guitar players attempting to break from the norms of society will stop speaking and develop a riff-only based form of communication. (Coincidentally following a profound LSD experience)
10. Actually the previous item may have already happened.
11. Terrorist are accused by homeland security as using embedded messages within a guitar which is reveiled when the correct 80's hair band solo is played.
12. Humans realize their diminishing fun while playing these devices and get back to their musical roots (Fart, Burping & beating on things with sticks)
13. Slashdot post its final article on the subject on the greatest MS Gibson guitar mod of all
Almost Sober,
SuperGlueBooger
first of all, IANA (I am not ancient) so my knowledge on this might be rusty. correct me if anybody knows better.
Now, here are some reasons why tubes might sound better:
first of all let's start with some tube basics: you heat a plate (cathod) and electrons jump off it. the electrons pass through a grid, and gets obsorbed at another plate (anode). You can vary the voltage on the grid and control how much eletrons pass - hence the amplifying.
The difference between a tube amp and a FET amp is that tube amps have some insane amount of dynamic range that is very nice and linear. somethinge like 40V (or more, depending on the tube). It goes by the name "high voltage, low current."
Now, for the same power, FETS can't touch this range because most fets don't operate at that high voltage level - and if you push it then it will saturate / turn off and you won't be linear anymore.
So for the same power, FETS would go toward "low voltage, high current." This is cool and all, and theoretically if you stay within the linear region you are all good, right? wrong. All the EE books teaches you one thing that you never do in the real life - that is to assome a nice ground.
ground is never nice - especially when there is a lot of current, ground tend to float here and there - which would give you crap and distortions that we all know and love. Of course, throughout the years engineers (hey we don't have a life, after all) figured some ways around it - but AFAIK all of these are either 1) very expensive, and 2) not completely effective (usually it's both). (btw, one of these is to make as much of the system digital as possible.)
So... In the end, tube amps still reign. I heard that RCA made the best tubes, no confirmation on this, though.
Just for the few who thought "well when we get lots of superconductors then finally FET amps will be better!" That's not correct either. Unfortunately superconductors we know of are only good for no resistance at DC, and the ground does not play nice because of AC concerns.
So, there you have it. For the record I don't know any engineers who thought "oh yeah I can duplicate a tube response through other means," but they might have told their bosses shit like "I can make it damn close and you can't tell the difference" (which is usually a lie) so to keep their jobs.
And Tubes are considered solid-state. A tad fragile (there are stainless steel ones for the military, if anyone is interested), but still solid state last I checked...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
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).
Yeah, but this one would go to 802.eleven.
Lets get rid of the troublesome strings then, replace the operator with some software! Said operator can then concentrate fully on the strutting, and generally looking cool.
I can only imagine your traditional rock band roady will think of this - can you imagine:-
"Oi! Dave, make us a cuppa tea - I'm jus con-figging dur main switch"
"yeah alf a mo John, gotta unpack da amps and those er.. 'rooter' things you was talking about"
"Noice one, don't forget the bootp server"
"er... John.. what's this 'effernet' anyway?"
"not now John" (taps microphone) " Testing, testing..er I mean 'Ping 12.12.123.12'"
"No response from bass guitar"
"is it da cable?"
"Nah thas normal - he's bladdered, innit".