Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Gibson Guitars and Ethernet

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Dec 04, 2001 01:33 PM
from the pick-up-my-guitar-and-play dept.
Gordon_Cabaniss writes "Gibson, the country's second largest guitar manufacturer, teamed up with twelve Silicon Valley engineers and modified the ethernet protocol to link audio between instruments and the mixer. Gibson is calling the technology MAGIC and they are boasting 'both a cleaner sound and a simpler setup.' 'Gibson's Magic carries up to 64 signals per cable, thus saving space and time.' The technology is licensed royalty free and tech giants Sony, Phillips, and Cisco are already showing interest. Gibson also says to not be surprised to see Ethernet ports on guitars within the next 12 to 18 months." I love the idea of my SG having 100mb/s ethernet on it. I'm sure all 3 of my chords would sound ... well, just as bad, but digital.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Gibson Guitars and Ethernet | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 432 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • whee (Score:5, Funny)

    by VAXGeek (3443) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:35PM (#2654741) Homepage
    you may have Ethernet on your Gibson, but I have NetBSD on my Fender.
    • Re:whee by Bob McCown (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:38PM
    • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • The Gibson Les Paul by matty (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:36PM
  • Talk about multitalented... by Meefan (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:36PM
  • Aw yeah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:36PM (#2654752)
    Now someone can root my six-string and play some good music, since I have no talent for playing.

    hee
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • How was the concert? (Score:3, Funny)

    by soft_guy (534437) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:36PM (#2654753)
    Q: How was the concert? A: Fine until some jerk started a denial of service attack on the band over 802.11.
    • Re:How was the concert? by Hobbex (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:58PM
    • Soz - cant help myself..... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Marcus Brody (320463) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:25PM (#2655113) Homepage
      -Imagine a beowulf cluster of these! Rock on, baby....

      -Does anyone know where I can download Gibson-Linux?

      -"Yeah dude, we were like ROCKING wembley stadium... But then we got slashdotted"

      -Cant play tonight.... guitar got a virus.

      -This Guitar has caused an illegal operation and will be restarted.

      -"Hi, looks like your trying to play Johnny B. Goode. Would you like me to help you with that?"

      -This guitar sucks. It only has two notes: 1 and 0

      -Hey, I cant get broadband. Do you think they will release a modem version?

      -Token ring on the guitar string?

      -Packet loss during the thrash-metal guitar solo?



      Was the big bang louder than drum & bass?

      [ Parent ]
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Encoded Audio? by eples (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:37PM
  • Some more applications for this. by eclectric (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:38PM
  • mLAN (Score:5, Informative)

    by wouter (103085) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:39PM (#2654779) Homepage
    Yamaha developed a similar technology that could transport audio and midi-signals, going over firewire.

    http://www.yamaha.com/proaudio/products/system_m la n.htm

    It's an interesting way to hook up sequencers, samplers, synthesizers and sound cards to each other without having to plug in audio and midi wires, and worry about magnetic interference.

    mLan can do about 100 separate channels of music (good enough for a Dolby 5.1 system? :) and 16x256 channels of MIDI data. Throughput is up to 200Mbps, so you don't have to worry about MIDI latency again :)
    • Re:mLAN by wouter (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:42PM
    • Re:mLAN by _typo (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:45PM
      • Re:mLAN by wouter (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:49PM
        • Re:mLAN by elmegil (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:15PM
          • Re:mLAN by gig (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @06:25PM
      • Re:mLAN by zerOnIne (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:50PM
      • Re:mLAN by smatthew (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:27PM
    • Re:mLAN (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nater (15229) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:52PM (#2654892) Homepage

      Throughput is up to 200Mbps, so you don't have to worry about MIDI latency again :)

      Throughput and latency are different things. Here's an example to illustrate:

      • In New York, fill a railroad box car with 80GB hard drives filled with your mountain of data (many many many many terabytes in that box car).
      • Send the boxcar to San Francisco in the way that one would expect to send a box car from New York to San Franciso.
      • Unload the hard drives from the boxcar

      Now, some calculations using simple numbers. Let's say you managed to stuff 5 exabytes of data into the box car and it took 3 days to get to San Francisco. Your throughput would be around 34 GB/s. Your latency would be around 3 days.

      Is the difference clear now?

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:mLAN by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:13PM
      • Re:mLAN by scott1853 (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:30PM
        • Re:mLAN by Nater (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:42PM
          • Re:mLAN by pcidevel (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:08PM
            • Re:mLAN by mr3038 (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:28PM
              • Re:mLAN by pcidevel (Score:3) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:52PM
        • Latency v throughput (...and getting off topic) by broter (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:51PM
        • Re:mLAN by dillon_rinker (Score:3) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:22PM
      • Re:mLAN by StikyPad (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:23PM
      • Re:mLAN by unitron (Score:2) Wednesday December 05 2001, @01:43AM
      • Re:mLAN by netwiz (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @03:21PM
      • Re:mLAN by Nater (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:10PM
        • Re:mLAN by Smurf (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @06:23PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:mLAN by wings (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:21PM
      • Re:mLAN by Nater (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:37PM
      • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:mLAN by larkost (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:05PM
    • Re:mLAN by FFFish (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @08:31PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Guitar hacks by Violet Null (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:40PM
    • Re:Guitar hacks by Tha_Zanthrax (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @03:45AM
  • Now to transform the wireless interface by s33t (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:41PM
  • CCL maps Guitar chords to common Linix commands and a subset of the ASCII character set. By playing a sequence of guitar chords, you can set up commands, pipes, and filters. Output is delivered by speech synthesizer. While the speech synthesizer text is from Linix, the frequency and other parameters are computer-driven to harmonize with, or improvise upon, the chords of your input. Visual output similarly turns mundane text into a rock video.

    Bruce :-)

  • sounds like a better MIDI by Sebastopol (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:42PM
  • This comes under the heading of... by wiredog (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:43PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The Spec (Score:5, Informative)

    by d5w (513456) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:43PM (#2654810)
    The actual MaGIC spec [gibson.com] is available from Gibson's site.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Sorry, not Ethernet by xyzzy (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:43PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by geekoid (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:57PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet -- RTFA by Conspiracy Theorist (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:58PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by Feynman (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:01PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by anothy (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:12PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by kin_korn_karn (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:19PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by dimitri_k (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:28PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet (Score:4, Informative)

      by anticypher (48312) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `rehpycitna'> on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:39PM (#2655231) Homepage
      Did you read the spec? Looks like ethernet to me.

      At the physical layer, they have chosen to use inline power ethernet, an emerging standard. Data pins remain unchanged. Power over ethernet seems to be optional, its just there for unpowered devices like acoustic guitars.

      At the link layer, they conform to standard MAC addressing, and leave space for IP/TCP/UDP headers, so the signals can be routed/bridged.

      There are new packet definitions for timing and other functions, but I wouldn't be surprised if I could just plug a pair of cisco routers in between some of these devices and make them work across a town. It might take some careful bridging configuration, but it looks like straight forward networking at layer 2.

      The next higher layer jumps straight to application layer(7), and defines audio channels and control signals. As a networking person, I couldn't care less about that, I'll deliver any packet payload. And the application doesn't really care whether I moved the signals over fibre or copper or a WAN link.

      Given their careful stepping around of the IP/TCP header area, I'd say when these devices exist, they will bridge/repeat any other IP traffic that obviously isn't MAGIC traffic. So you can have a browser behind your mix panel with only a single connection to the local router, and your friends can be playing their instruments behind their DSL connections.

      For geek factor, I'd give this a 9. Very cool.

      I'll leave the "gouging the musicians" comments to the musicians :-)

      the AC
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 24 volts across pins 7 and 8 by asmithmd1 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:58PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by SuzanneA (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:22PM
    • Yes, but mLAN *is* FireWire by s.o.terica (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:07PM
    • Re:Sorry, not Ethernet by FFFish (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @08:34PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Life imitating (art?) by re-Verse (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:44PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not gonna fly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by javaaddikt (385701) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:44PM (#2654815)
    Guitarists have already rejected technically-superior digital solid state amps going back instead to vacuum tubes because of the warmer sound. They won't go digital this time either.
    • Technically superior? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Frank Sullivan (2391) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:04PM (#2654984) Homepage
      It seems to me (as a guitarist, computer programmer, and amp builder) that part of the purpose, if not the MAIN purpose, of the guitar amp is to color the sound of the guitar in pleasing ways. So if tubes produce better colorations than "technically-superior digital solid state amps", then the tubes are technically superior, n'est pas?

      The only thing "technically superior" about digital amps is that they are cheaper to manufacture.

      And no, i won't be putting ethernet on my Gibson. Experience and simple physics dictates that the cord itself from the high-impedance guitar electronics to the amplifier input also colors the tone, and i'm not going to give up that coloration. Digitizing at 16bit/44.1khz "CD quality" commits absolute horrors on the subtleties of good tone (this can be mostly defeated with sufficient bandwidth, ie 24bit/96khz, but the Philips/Sony "Perfect Sound Forever" format is a crime against music).

      Then again, my main guitar is an acoustic with no electronics at all, so i suppose it won't be needing ethernet. :}
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not gonna fly by Phillip2 (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:05PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by nanojath (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:12PM
    • solid state reborn by pohl (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:23PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by MrResistor (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:45PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by wishus (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:57PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by splice (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:18PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by iomud (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:55PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by LinuxIsStillBetter (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @07:54PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by asifyoucare (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @09:15PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by Doctor Faustus (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @10:23PM
    • Re:Not gonna fly by unitron (Score:2) Wednesday December 05 2001, @02:16AM
  • Very useful... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BMonger (68213) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:45PM (#2654822)
    I run a 16 and 32 channel mixing board myself and just figuring out which channel goes to which instrument/mic is a pain sometimes. According to the article when the item is plugged in it would show up on the mixing board as "Whomever's Guitar" or whatever it was set to. This would be very very handy I think for the people behind the scenes. Not only will it be beneficial to the quality of the sound but beneficial to people like me. Hopefully this technology will be implemented in more things that guitars, which I'm certain it will.

    It'd make life easier if you could upload effects straight to the guitar/mic instead of having to run it through an effects box too.
  • Great but... by mickeyreznor (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:45PM
  • ugh. by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:45PM
    • Re:ugh. by kin_korn_karn (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:22PM
    • Re:ugh. by orange_6 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:56PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:ugh. by Rew190 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @09:44PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • MIDI by dustman (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:45PM
  • Skip wires, move directly to wireless by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:45PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not so sure.... by zarathustra93 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:46PM
  • will musicians buy this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lxy (80823) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:46PM (#2654838) Journal
    I have a lot of experience working with guitar players and many of them would never go with this type of thing. Most guitar players like their sound raw, using analog effects and tube amps. Why? Because its sounds so good. There's nothing like the crunch of plugging your guitar into a Marshall stack and blowing people out of the building. It's tough to capture that tube sound in digital technology, and this ethernet guitar takes it one step farther away from the analog that they want. I really can't see a lot of hard core musicians going for a system like this.
  • Whole new meaning.... by linuxrunner (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:46PM
  • Other applications by Ed Avis (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:47PM
  • MIDI for the 21st Century by hrieke (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:48PM
  • I don't know... by stungod (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:48PM
  • Next: circular guitars for moving heavy objects by T.E.D. (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:49PM
  • Guitars and Ethernet (Score:4, Funny)

    by zangdesign (462534) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:50PM (#2654876) Journal
    I can see the headlines now:

    "Unnamed Hacker 'ownz' Ted Nugent - 200 fans hospitalized for serious inner ear bleading.

    "The Nuge was not available for comment as authorities are investigating allegations that a hacker had broken security on Ted Nugent's favorite guitar. Apparently, the attack caused the amplifier stack to overload, drawing about 800,000 watts for approximately 10 seconds. The resulting decibel levels were off the scale and one spectator described it as "WHAT? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WHAT?!". Several fans were hospitalized in critical condition - surgeons are even now trying to figure out how to re-sect bones that have been 'pulverized by hypersonic forces."

    This post copyrighted, patented, folded, spindled and mutilated. If you live in the EU, even reading it may be illegal. If you live in France, you probably wouldn't get it anyway.
    • Good News by eclectric (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:57PM
      • Re:Good News by zangdesign (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:53PM
      • Re:Good News by penguinboy (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:28PM
    • Re:Guitars and Ethernet by Fjord (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:30PM
  • There's still one problem by Dop (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:50PM
  • interesting idea...bad timing by shftleft (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:50PM
  • Given Gibson's Track Record... by Black-Man (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:51PM
  • packet solos... by silversurf (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:52PM
  • posted a long time ago by proj_2501 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:53PM
  • Obligatory idiocy by gmcraff (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:55PM
  • Snakeoil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mononoke (88668) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:55PM (#2654909) Homepage Journal
    Gibson also says to not be surprised to see Ethernet ports on guitars within the next 12 to 18 months.
    The combo instrument business (instruments, amps, etc. for your typical garage band) is the largest snakeoil business in the world. Out-of-this-world inventions show up here all the time, and every rockstar wannabe will save up money from his lawn-mowing job to buy whatever latest piece of crap is marketed to make him think he can be the next Eddie VanHalen. Guess what: Two years from now the cool crap will be old worthless crap because it didn't do anything but make money for the local music store.

    Wanna know the first problem I see with this: Nobody plugs their guitar straight into the mixer. The guitar amplifier is an integral part of the tone and playability of a guitar. A Les Paul plugged into a Marshall stack; A Stratocaster plugged into a Fender Twin; These are still around because they work. Stick a mic in front of the amp, run that through the sound system, and away you go. Save the digital conversions for places where it's needed.

    Bands don't need more-complicated ways to hook their guitars up. The current way works just fine. There are some wonderful improvements occuring with digital consoles, digital system processors, and so on. But these have little to do with Gibson and guitars.

    Gibson is still trying to find ways to put a New & Improved label on an already perfect guitar invented over 40 years ago, just to get people to buy the latest crap.

    Sad part is, people will.

    (Yes, I'm a sound man. And I do have digital consoles to work with. But all the digital crap in the world won't make a player any more talented.)

    • Re:Snakeoil by proj_2501 (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:01PM
    • Re:Snakeoil by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:07PM
      • Re:Snakeoil (Score:5, Funny)

        by Sabalon (1684) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:49PM (#2655310)
        I dunno. I still think the best sound is a mic in front of the amp. Line-out's on amps just don't sound right. I seriously doubt that ethernet out would sound any better.

        Now...if you could place an ethernet mic in front of the amp with the syncing on it, that'd be cool - at least until:

        "Illegal Operation: device eth0 detected "Stairway to Heaven". Port disconnected.

        No Stairway - denied!
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Snakeoil by kin_korn_karn (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:28PM
      • Re:Snakeoil by MindStalker (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:56PM
    • Re:Snakeoil by zeronyne (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:41PM
      • Re:Snakeoil by TheReverand (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:24PM
    • Re:Snakeoil (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rho (6063) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:38PM (#2655647) Homepage Journal

      Fair comments. But, before you disparage it, take into account the next bunch of teenagers saving their lawnmowing money for this "digital crap" may be the ones who will push music creation and/or delivery towards a brand new direction.

      Your complaints are similar to the first guy who complained about electrifying the guitar: "Just put a mic on a plain old' accoustic--that's the best sound you can get!"

      Here's a from-the-ass example: a bunch of guitar players get together in a club, connect all together through a switch, and run the signals through a processor that converts all the sounds to the same key. Which key is controlled by another device that reads motion patterns of the people on the dance floor. The combined sound is then piped into the club's speakers. Evolutionary music!

      Just keep an open mind about it. Sure, Gibson developed it to sell more stuff, but that's what they're there for. Unless you think that music stopped in the 1970's with guitar rock...

      [ Parent ]
    • not to be a yes-man or anything by motherfuckin_spork (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:52PM
    • Re:Snakeoil by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:29PM
    • Where is will really help by andreass (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:35PM
    • Re:Snakeoil by goodie (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @10:58PM
      • Re:Snakeoil by Mononoke (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @11:15AM
      • Re:Snakeoil by goodie (Score:1) Wednesday December 19 2001, @02:12AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Snakeoil by hejpig (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @04:26AM
    • DI: A bass player's perspective by Cybertect (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @08:42AM
  • Journal, Feb 13 2003 by rocjoe (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:56PM
  • This sounds good until... by NoMoreNicksLeft (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:56PM
  • IP by Unprintable (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:56PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Yes, but will they run linux? by Eugene O'Neil (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:57PM
  • Is it really going to matter? by Master Of Ninja (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:57PM
  • Re: Bad Chords by Canthros (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:58PM
  • by SirSlud (67381) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:59PM (#2654945) Homepage
    MIDI is not what they are talking about here. They are talking about audio. MIDI is not audio, but rather 'piano roll'. The only data being sent to the sequencer/keyboard is which notes to play, and when. Conversely, audio is the actual audio signal generated by the instrument, whether it be a keyboard or a guitar.

    The true value of audio over ethernet is the existing infrastructure (hubs, switchers, etc), coupled with being able to identify 'devices' hooked up to your setup. Mixers, be them software or hardware mixers, that are 'ethernet aware' would be able to auto-assign the devices name that an instrument reports itself as to the network to faders and knobs in your setup. Currently, you have to know which wires are going from which instruments into what audio-ins on your hardware/software mixer/multitrak; in order to fade a guitar line, for instance, you need to be physically aware of which audio-in the guitar is connected to. This amounts to a huge amount of organizational work for producers/techs, as they must use project software or notebooks to keep track of how various projects are wired up. Some technologies are alleviating these troubles, but from what I understand, its still a pain in many setups to keep track of which songs and projects are wired up which way.

    Hopefully, this Gibson technology would allow producers and sound guys to forget those details, and just assign 'network instruments' to which ever faders they please, without ever having to verify that the guitar was plugged into the correct audio-in, corresponding to the controls (faders, knobs) you wish you use to do your production and mixdowns.

    At least, thats what I get out of it.

    BTW, I am a d'n'b producer with a fairly functional grasp of lo-pro to mid-pro MIDI and audio gear, so while I'm not privvy to the nitty gritty of doing sound for live shows or full rack mixers in-studio, I think I can glean what the true pay off is here, for the sound guys and musicians alike.
  • The network roadie? by jfsather (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:59PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • It will still be proprietary by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:59PM
  • Wireless by malarkey (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:00PM
  • Cables won't hold up by alexjp (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:01PM
  • Stairway to Heaven Virus by Sturm (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:02PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not such a good idea by Tom7 (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:02PM
  • fire up tcpdump and see... by jeffiet (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:02PM
  • Wait a second... by albamuth (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:02PM
  • I smell a Milli Vanilli comeback by jkindoll (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:03PM
  • Les Paul would have been proud.... by StressGuy (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:04PM
  • like mLAN? by version5 (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:06PM
  • cool! by MarcoAtWork (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:07PM
    • Re:cool! by pigpen_ (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:14PM
  • Next step is digital sound to the speakers by ickpoo (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:09PM
  • Timing and network latency by Phillip2 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:09PM
  • No way this will take off (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:09PM (#2655010)
    As a guitar player of 15 years and the proud owner of a ton of bizzare equipment (and the proud ower of a B.A. in Music Composition) I can say this will bomb. There are very, very subtle electrical interactions that happen between an amp (or stomp boxes) and the pickups in the guitar. You think that there isn't a forward or backward voltage bias that effects the sounds? You think this stuff is so simple you can just digitize it and expect the magical ethernet to handle it?

    No, kids. This is the wild and wooly world of magical analog electronics and while digital makes leaps and bounds, I honestly doubt it will quite match the lovely interaction between a classic Les Paul and a Marshall stack. The would be a GODSEND for MIDI, but as another poster noted, Yamaha already has a way of doing this over Firewire, which is a vastly superior technology for this kind of time-sensitive thing because of it's isochronous transport layer. Ethernet with it's packet collisions will just simply not do. (not to mention the joy of potentially having firewire powered synth modules without the pain in the ass wall warts)

    And finally, latency is the death of electric/electronic instruments. Can they guarantee the (nearly) zero latency that I can already get with my analog gear?
  • gibson's magic , was Gmic (gimmick ?) by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:09PM
  • Ummmm. by lumpenprole (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:16PM
  • Nope, will not work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cheezit (133765) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:20PM (#2655086) Homepage
    Guitarists are VERY conservative when it comes to gear. I worked as a vacuum tube tech for a while working on guitar amps. Guitar amps are the only place in electronics where you look at an RCA manual from the 1930's to find out what the specs are for something.

    The digital amp-modeling units have had some succesd---I have a POD that I play almost exclusively. But guitars will NOT change. The iconic image of a rock star holding a Gibson or a Fender is embedded in the minds of too many middle-aged guitar players.

    They only way this could happen is if the plug looks exactly like the current 1/4" model (another product from the 30's). Oh, and it has to be compatible with existing analog gear.
  • Non-Digital, you say, offers better sound?! by MindPhlux (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:22PM
  • Gibson is way ahead by pmancini (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:29PM
  • Spinal Tap 2003 (Score:5, Funny)

    by micromoog (206608) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:31PM (#2655164)
    "These go to 802.11!"
  • Neat, but I have to ask, by A_Non_Moose (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:39PM
  • In other news . . . by DeadMeat (TM) (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:40PM
  • Douglas Adams? by Triv (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:42PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Now what we need... (Score:4, Funny)

    by seanmeister (156224) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:46PM (#2655284)
    Now what we need is some kind of Napster-type client so we can bypass CD's and steal Metallica tunes directly from James Hetfield's guitar!
  • hackers (Score:3, Funny)

    by brer_rabbit (195413) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:47PM (#2655286) Journal
    I guess my license plate reading "I hacked the Gibson", in reference to the awful movie Hackers [imdb.com], will have an entirely new meaning.
  • Ethernet ports? by BillyGoatThree (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:48PM
  • The new sound checks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sabalon (1684) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:54PM (#2655343)
    circa 1983: "check check 1 2 check check 1 2"
    circa 2005: "traceroute traceroute"
  • by Pinball Wizard (161942) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:57PM (#2655366) Homepage Journal
    Digital needs to get much better before it can replace tube guitar amps. None of the modeling amps sound as good as an all-tube Fender or Marshall.


    For a digital amplifier to truly replace tubes, the current state of DACs and ADCs just don't cut it. There needs to be a much higher resolution in these devices, perhaps 128 bit or even higher. Then, these devices need to learn to react to the dynamics of the player well - a good tube amp can go from a soft passage to full-tilt scream by playing harder and hitting the volume control. Finally digital amps need to be able to do feedback - i.e. interact with guitar pickups in such a way that will interactively produce feedback at different harmonics of the original signal depending on the angle and proximity of the guitar to the amplifier.


    Until that happens, I'm sticking with tubes. Perhaps a better application of digital tech to the world of guitar would be to simply make tubes work better - more reliably and consistently.


    That said, I'm all for ethernet replacing MIDI. But that's an entirely different proposition.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • What about Balanced Cable Connect to Guitar? by Cygnus v1 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:57PM
  • Guitarists, no. Bassists, yes! by wembley (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:59PM
  • New OS For This by dygytyz (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:03PM
  • Digital schmidgital by 8bit (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:12PM
  • Replacement for cobranet! by statusbar (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:15PM
  • I'll take my Taylor acoustic any day... by maynard (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:15PM
  • Solution for tech layoffs... by Zenjive (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:16PM
  • Stepenwolf? by betis70 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:17PM
    • Re:Stepenwolf? by Monofilament (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:20PM
  • Home music production... with ease by Monofilament (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:18PM
  • Ingenious by TheTomcat (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:18PM
  • CobraNet by Peak Audio was first by weco713 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:33PM
  • DIgital vs Analog/Tube vs SS by nooch (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:33PM
  • Ethernet.... guitar? ugh. :) by Heretik (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:43PM
  • ethernet out of amps? by pressman (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:46PM
  • Okay... now let's apply this back in IT. by Jonathan C. Patschke (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:53PM
  • the case for ethernet speakers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by option8 (16509) on Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:54PM (#2655755) Homepage
    i asked once a while ago - and nobody was able to answer - whether it was possible or feasible to route audio signals over an ethernet network. my goal was to be able to have ethernet speakers with a sound source plugged into the network as well.

    my idea was spurred by the fact that my new office has ethernet in every room, but to get sound from the MP3 music server into those rooms, it would either require streaming the signal over the LAN (and each box would have its own buffer lag.. ugh) or else run speaker wire through all the rooms as well. why not use some portion of the ethernet standard to pump an audio signal through?

    so, it looks like somebody did me one better, and made an ethernet-enabled guitar and amp.

    so, when do i get to buy a receiver with 10/100 and a bunch of speakers with RJ45 jacks on them?
  • Wireless is better by scseth (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:07PM
  • 4 Reasons why this is a Bad Idea by NulDevice (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:19PM
  • Maybe some good connectors will result by John Whitley (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:20PM
  • This doesn't sound like a midi replacement by blueskatz (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:23PM
  • This is great... by double_h (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:30PM
  • This compares to the Roland Guitar Synth... by Bassman59 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @04:59PM
  • Standard New Tech Jokes... by GeekLife.com (Score:2) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:22PM
  • Total piracy of technology by TheProteus (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:40PM
  • Some history of Gibson's CEO by AnalogDiehard (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:47PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • old news by syrupdude (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:56PM
  • The instrument isn't digital: the sound is by BlueCoder (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @05:59PM
  • Not content, are they? by Atrax (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @06:31PM
  • But Gibson's name is mud in electronic music. by gig (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @06:38PM
  • Big Gimmick by sg1q (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @07:26PM
  • I'm hesitant to believe it's a good thing.... by Jessegri (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @10:16PM
  • just as bad but digital? by pompomtom (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @12:23AM
  • What about us analog freaks? by S_impled (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @12:24AM
  • Gibson made a lot more than bad synths... by LightJockey (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @12:37AM
  • Possible Uses for this... by frenchs (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @12:55AM
  • Great for Keyboards, Mixers, Digital Recording by LoveMe2Times (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @03:45AM
  • Moot Point by davez_not_here (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @04:46AM
  • Put it on keyboards/ mics, and don't use RJ45 by Stipe (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @08:37AM
  • Gibson Guitar and Ethernet by danmitch (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @11:33AM
  • Music over CSMA/CD = stupid by metamatic (Score:1) Wednesday December 05 2001, @02:03PM
  • Re:RANDOM NUMBER FIRST POST! by pivo (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @01:40PM
  • Re:"Gibson, the country's second largest guitar... by HCase (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @02:20PM
  • Re:Hella. by zeno_2 (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:13PM
  • Actually... by AndroidCat (Score:1) Tuesday December 04 2001, @03:40PM
  • 43 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2