| Author |
Topic: "Chameleon Guitar" from M.I.T. Media Lab |
Pete Finney
From:
Nashville Tn.
|
Posted 15 Feb 2009 10:11 am |
|
I'd be curious to hear what folks here more knowledgeable about guitar technology than I am think about this new contraption...
(There's been four generations of my family associated with M.I.T. but I sure ain't one of them!).
One of them forwarded this to me:
http://tinyurl.com/acxdlc |
|
|
|
Dave Harmonson
From:
Seattle, Wa
|
Posted 15 Feb 2009 1:08 pm
|
|
It sure seems like a revolutionary developement. Sending the sound to a virtual sound box seems to give it much more realistic reproduction than any other acoustic guitar sampled sounds I've heard before. It would be interesting to hear it in person and really see how close the reproduction is.
Maybe it'll be a common thing in another year aor two. |
|
|
|
Bill Cutright
From:
Akron, OH
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 9:44 am
|
|
Its, definitely, interesting, But from what I got out of the videos, they haven’t got the software developed to point where it can be demonstrated. Just several different top configurations – all of which sounded, in a word, awful.
I’m a little confused about the true direction of the effort… if the idea is they will be able, thru software to realistically emulate various guitar tones (i.e. a 1945 Martin D28, or 1959 les paul thru a marshall, etc..), I gess that would be great. But, then, why can’t they just do that thru the software – why would the different mini-top configs be necessary? I’m, probably, missing something… |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 9:59 am
|
|
I think it's interesting, but we'll see how revolutionary. The part that's new (when they do it) will be the modular and easily removable resonator and whatever they can get from the processing. If they are able to really capture the sound of something really different than the physics of the instrument like a good prewar Herringbone D-28, then I think it will be very significant. I'm personally a bit skeptical. I'm guessing that they will find the mechanics to be nonlinear - they seem to be arguing that they can just expand and contract dimensions and so on. I'm not so sure about that, but the proof will be in the listening.
This seems, to me, like a logical extension of the original National steel guitar and Dobro concept, the purposes of which were both to amplify but also change the tone by putting a resonator within a resonator. In fact, that's what the acoustic sound on that clip sounded a lot like, to me. OK, now they're using a wood resonator and want to process that. It may get some new sounds, but I don't know if it will be a true chameleon.
It seems very early to project where this might go. The music biz is filled with lots of interesting ideas that never really get any traction because they don't really supplant what's out there now. To me, this really doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor - use the simplest, most direct solution to a problem. Why clutter up an acoustic instrument with a bunch of processing to try to make it "all things to all people"? Or, to look at this in another way - why is it so much more desirable to carry around a bunch of resonator inserts than have several guitars, each optimized for the sound one wants?
I wonder if this would get any press at all if it was happening at East Bugtussle State U.  |
|
|
|
AJ Azure
From:
Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 10:51 am
|
|
| Dave Mudgett wrote: |
Or, to look at this in another way - why is it so much more desirable to carry around a bunch of resonator inserts than have several guitars, each optimized for the sound one wants?
|
How's your back doing? Carry all those guitars for awhile and then answer the question again 
Oh and how rich are you? It might not work but, it definitely makes life potentially easier. |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 11:05 am
|
|
Compared to a pedal steel guitar, I can carry spanish-style guitars around all day long and never notice it.
As far as the price goes - I'll bet a good-quality insert like this isn't going to be cheap. Of course, there may be advantages - the biggest of which is that one only has to deal with one neck, optimized however one wants it. However the flip side is that, IMO, the neck and the way a guitar plays are a very important part of how it sounds.
Another point - strings. Do you change the strings every time you change an insert? The strings have a huge effect on the sound. Core design & material, winding method & material, gauge, you name it. One typically uses very, very different strings on a acoustic flattop, classical, acoustic vs. electric archtop vs. various types of solid-body electrics.
What I said before is "We'll see". My guess is that this will be a new toy with some interesting new sounds, but be evolutionary, not revolutionary. But I don't really know either. |
|
|
|
AJ Azure
From:
Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 11:47 am
|
|
| Dave Mudgett wrote: |
Compared to a pedal steel guitar, I can carry spanish-style guitars around all day long and never notice it.
As far as the price goes - I'll bet a good-quality insert like this isn't going to be cheap. Of course, there may be advantages - the biggest of which is that one only has to deal with one neck, optimized however one wants it. However the flip side is that, IMO, the neck and the way a guitar plays are a very important part of how it sounds.
Another point - strings. Do you change the strings every time you change an insert? The strings have a huge effect on the sound. Core design & material, winding method & material, gauge, you name it. One typically uses very, very different strings on a acoustic flattop, classical, acoustic vs. electric archtop vs. various types of solid-body electrics.
What I said before is "We'll see". My guess is that this will be a new toy with some interesting new sounds, but be evolutionary, not revolutionary. But I don't really know either. |
30 guitars are still 30 guitars to carry around. Lots to carry and cost prohibitive even if those inserts were to be on the pricier side. the other issues you raised yah true. It could be addressed via so0ftware and physical modeling. A lot of what comes out of the MIT media lab never goes very far. However, some stuff..well you ever heard of Guitar Hero? that's where the roots of the company who created it are situated. If it gets picked up by a major company you might see it on the market. |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 12:35 pm
|
|
| Bill Cutright wrote: |
Just several different top configurations – all of which sounded, in a word, awful.
|
Maybe that's why he buried the sound under a reverb effect, so we couldn't hear what his guitar sounds like. |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 12:49 pm
|
|
As far as 30 guitars goes - are you really suggesting that someone is going to carry and change 30 of these resonator modules onstage? If this is for the studio, it had better be bloody good to justify leaving the Tele, Strat, Paul, D-28, 6120, ES-175, classical, and so on, at home if that sound is needed.
As far as I'm concerned, if one can't get a very wide range of sounds out of, let's say, 3-4 guitars of different types, I don't think this gizmo will help much.
I also didn't say this won't be marketable - it may well be. Lots of "gee-whiz" technology gets marketed, sometimes very successfully. Your example of Guitar Hero is certainly correct, but it is very retrogressive from a musical point of view. Guitar Hero is just a game - a quasi-musical toy. I was trying to discuss some of what I see as the practical aspects of the 'chameleon' feature as a serious professional guitar.
I know about the media lab - I'm from Boston, my dad did his grad work at MIT, I worked at MIT for a while, and I have colleagues that came from the lab. The lab's function is look well forward and evaluate lots of ideas - a lot of it's brainstorming. If they ever come up with something that, from a practical point of view, truly replaces a pile of real good guitars, I'll be interested. Personally, I think my time is better spent playing my guitars than designing something to replace them - but that's just my take. |
|
|
|
AJ Azure
From:
Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 7:11 pm
|
|
| Dave Mudgett wrote: |
As far as 30 guitars goes - are you really suggesting that someone is going to carry and change 30 of these resonator modules onstage? If this is for the studio, it had better be bloody good to justify leaving the Tele, Strat, Paul, D-28, 6120, ES-175, classical, and so on, at home if that sound is needed.
As far as I'm concerned, if one can't get a very wide range of sounds out of, let's say, 3-4 guitars of different types, I don't think this gizmo will help much.
I also didn't say this won't be marketable - it may well be. Lots of "gee-whiz" technology gets marketed, sometimes very successfully. Your example of Guitar Hero is certainly correct, but it is very retrogressive from a musical point of view. Guitar Hero is just a game - a quasi-musical toy. I was trying to discuss some of what I see as the practical aspects of the 'chameleon' feature as a serious professional guitar.
I know about the media lab - I'm from Boston, my dad did his grad work at MIT, I worked at MIT for a while, and I have colleagues that came from the lab. The lab's function is look well forward and evaluate lots of ideas - a lot of it's brainstorming. If they ever come up with something that, from a practical point of view, truly replaces a pile of real good guitars, I'll be interested. Personally, I think my time is better spent playing my guitars than designing something to replace them - but that's just my take. |
Here's the thing would you be able to have 30 guitars at your disposal at a gig or at a studio session? Could you be lucky enough to own that rare guitar that there's only 20 models ever made and this could be modeled. I couldn't play a Les paul or tele in comfort due to the weight not to mention the neck issues inherent in different guitar types. So that's also an appealing factor. one consistent feel to the instrument.
As far as guitar hero what most don't know is the intention behind the creation of all of Harmonix games were to get music in the hands of non-musicians. SO Guitar hero has done the basics of that. I was in touch with them at the very get go of the company as they were just coming out of the media lab way back in the mid-90s |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 16 Feb 2009 9:06 pm
|
|
I don't think it's that tough these days to have whatever guitar sounds one needs. Most serious guitar players I know that play a wide range of styles have anywhere from a half a dozen to 20 or 30 or even more guitars cutting across the styles they play, and a bunch of amps to boot.
I still wanna know if someone would really drag all those inserts around and change them in the middle of a gig or session. The string issue I mentioned seems even more daunting - is it reasonable to expect a guitar with light-gauge steel electric guitar strings on it to really sound like a classical? I bet "jack of all trades, master of none" will apply as much here as it does to human beings.
As far as the "only 20 rare guitars" go - OK, show me even a great modern D-45/D-28 replica that really captures the pre-war D-45/28 sound. Like I said - if they can get this type of gizmo to sound real close to a great old guitar like that, my hat will be off and I'm sure I'll be eating my words.
Does that seem like an unreasonable standard? Well, I guess it's just one's perspective. But I am much more interested in figuring out how to get the sound of the truly great old guitars like the old prewar Martin flattops, the great old Gibson/Stromberg/D'Angelico archtops, the great old Teles/Strats/Pauls, and so on than a single box which will sound sort of like every modern Tele/Strat/Paul/metalhead-special or whatever electric, and assorted decent but generic flattops and archtops.
This is a common theme in the world of engineering design. Lots of pie-in-the-sky engineers love the idea of a "universal design", which covers every possible scenario. I can't tell you how much time I threw into that rathole when doing engineering research. The plain fact - IMO, at least - is that the more generic the design, the more tradeoffs that must be made on specific performance parameters. That may just be a "meta-theorem", but I have seen it over and over. |
|
|
|
