|
|
Guitar Discussions -> I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck
There are 12 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 10.
|
I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - jtees4 - 14:02 13-11-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - WB - 23:40 13-11-08
|
|
jtees4 wrote:
> Replaced in less than a year.
>
Pretty lame toy actually.
Fucking ugly color to boot.
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - Twibil - 03:24 14-11-08
|
|
On Nov 13, 11:02=A0am, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Replaced in less than a year.
The theory of self-tuning guitars is easy. Clear back in the early
'70s an electronic engineer friend of mine who'd recently retired from
the aerospace industry sat down and drew up plans for just such a
beastie. By scrounging electronic parts originally meant for the Space
Race, he had a working prototype up and running, er, tuning, in about
six months.
Only problems were that it was gawdawful ugly, added circa three
pounds to the guitar, had to be turned off while you were actually
playing, ate new batteries like crazy, and couldn't be reproduced for
less than a couple of thousand 1972 dollars -not counting the guitar
itself.
In a word: "impractical".
Q: Is there something wrong with simply learning how to tune your
guitar?
~Pete
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - Arlowe - 03:41 14-11-08
|
|
Twibil has brought this to us :
> On Nov 13, 11:02 am, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Replaced in less than a year.
>
> The theory of self-tuning guitars is easy. Clear back in the early
> '70s an electronic engineer friend of mine who'd recently retired from
> the aerospace industry sat down and drew up plans for just such a
> beastie. By scrounging electronic parts originally meant for the Space
> Race, he had a working prototype up and running, er, tuning, in about
> six months.
>
> Only problems were that it was gawdawful ugly, added circa three
> pounds to the guitar, had to be turned off while you were actually
> playing, ate new batteries like crazy, and couldn't be reproduced for
> less than a couple of thousand 1972 dollars -not counting the guitar
> itself.
>
> In a word: "impractical".
>
> Q: Is there something wrong with simply learning how to tune your
> guitar?
>
> ~Pete
No...I don't think that's the problem...I think people are becoming too
lazy to turn the machine heads.
I have a new invention
I attached a back scratcher to the bottom bough of my telecaster....now
I can get a bit of relief from that nasty jock itch while I am
playing...
I have the worlds first guitar with a built-in nut adjuster.
I call it....the "telebowler"
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - retired54 - 07:37 14-11-08
|
|
"Arlowe" <bare.arsed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.749c7d8b25db8f4f.90583@gmail.com...
> Twibil has brought this to us :
>> On Nov 13, 11:02 am, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Replaced in less than a year.
>>
>> The theory of self-tuning guitars is easy. Clear back in the early
>> '70s an electronic engineer friend of mine who'd recently retired from
>> the aerospace industry sat down and drew up plans for just such a
>> beastie. By scrounging electronic parts originally meant for the Space
>> Race, he had a working prototype up and running, er, tuning, in about
>> six months.
>>
>> Only problems were that it was gawdawful ugly, added circa three
>> pounds to the guitar, had to be turned off while you were actually
>> playing, ate new batteries like crazy, and couldn't be reproduced for
>> less than a couple of thousand 1972 dollars -not counting the guitar
>> itself.
>>
>> In a word: "impractical".
>>
>> Q: Is there something wrong with simply learning how to tune your
>> guitar?
>>
>> ~Pete
>
> No...I don't think that's the problem...I think people are becoming too
> lazy to turn the machine heads.
>>
Being able to change tunings on the fly has obvious advantages.
I think allot of people missed the point with this technology.
Olddog
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - retired54 - 07:42 14-11-08
|
|
"WB" <warbaby@ppp.com> wrote in message
news:491d0141$0$5486$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
> jtees4 wrote:
>> Replaced in less than a year.
>>
>
> Pretty lame toy actually.
> Fucking ugly color to boot.
>
Gibson offers different colors now but I agree that original blue color was
pretty bad.
As a slide player that switches from open, to standard, to dropped D; I'd
like to have one of those "lame toys." :^)
Olddog
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - RichCI - 12:24 14-11-08
|
|
On Nov 14, 7:37=A0am, "retired54" <ne...@mind.com> wrote:
> "Arlowe" <bare.ar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:mn.749c7d8b25db8f4f.90583@gmail.com...
>
>
>
> > Twibil has brought this to us :
> >> On Nov 13, 11:02 am, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Replaced in less than a year.
>
> >> The theory of self-tuning guitars is easy. Clear back in the early
> >> '70s an electronic engineer friend of mine who'd recently retired from
> >> the aerospace industry sat down and drew up plans for just such a
> >> beastie. By scrounging electronic parts originally meant for the Space
> >> Race, he had a working prototype up and running, er, tuning, in about
> >> six months.
>
> >> Only problems were that it was gawdawful ugly, added circa three
> >> pounds to the guitar, had to be turned off while you were actually
> >> playing, ate new batteries like crazy, and couldn't be reproduced for
> >> less than a couple of thousand 1972 dollars -not counting the guitar
> >> itself.
>
> >> In a word: "impractical".
>
> >> Q: Is there something wrong with simply learning how to tune your
> >> guitar?
>
> >> ~Pete
>
> > No...I don't think that's the problem...I think people are becoming too
> > lazy to turn the machine heads.
>
> Being able to change tunings on the fly has obvious advantages.
>
> I think allot of people missed the point with this technology.
I agree. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to play in different tunings
at a gig without having to drag around extra guitars or stop in the
middle of a set to retune to the alternate tuning? For that matter,
wouldn't it be nice to not have to take up time between songs to tune
with even a standard tuner when the crowd is jumping and the energy is
really going? Lead singer: "Hey, hold up people! The guitar play
has to just tune up for a minute! Soooooo... How's everybody feelin'
tonight!?"
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - jtees4 - 13:01 14-11-08
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:37:44 GMT, "retired54" <never@mind.com> wrote:
>
>"Arlowe" <bare.arsed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mn.749c7d8b25db8f4f.90583@gmail.com...
>> Twibil has brought this to us :
>>> On Nov 13, 11:02 am, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Replaced in less than a year.
>>>
>>> The theory of self-tuning guitars is easy. Clear back in the early
>>> '70s an electronic engineer friend of mine who'd recently retired from
>>> the aerospace industry sat down and drew up plans for just such a
>>> beastie. By scrounging electronic parts originally meant for the Space
>>> Race, he had a working prototype up and running, er, tuning, in about
>>> six months.
>>>
>>> Only problems were that it was gawdawful ugly, added circa three
>>> pounds to the guitar, had to be turned off while you were actually
>>> playing, ate new batteries like crazy, and couldn't be reproduced for
>>> less than a couple of thousand 1972 dollars -not counting the guitar
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> In a word: "impractical".
>>>
>>> Q: Is there something wrong with simply learning how to tune your
>>> guitar?
>>>
>>> ~Pete
>>
>> No...I don't think that's the problem...I think people are becoming too
>> lazy to turn the machine heads.
>>>
>
>Being able to change tunings on the fly has obvious advantages.
>
>I think allot of people missed the point with this technology.
>
>Olddog
>
>
I agree...I did not mean this post as a flame against Gibson for the
tuning thing...just the fact that they are replacing the system with a
new one so soon AND offering upgrades to those that bought the old
system. That tells me there were a lot of bugs and problems with the
old system. I wouold not mind having a self tuning guitar at all...in
fact if I saw one cheap enough (which may happen) I'll grab one.
***********
We will review your music for you! Totally FREE:
http://reviewmymusicnow.com/
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - Arlowe - 15:17 14-11-08
|
|
retired54 presented the following explanation :
> "Arlowe" <bare.arsed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mn.749c7d8b25db8f4f.90583@gmail.com...
>> Twibil has brought this to us :
>>> On Nov 13, 11:02 am, jtees4 <jte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Replaced in less than a year.
>>>
>>> The theory of self-tuning guitars is easy. Clear back in the early
>>> '70s an electronic engineer friend of mine who'd recently retired from
>>> the aerospace industry sat down and drew up plans for just such a
>>> beastie. By scrounging electronic parts originally meant for the Space
>>> Race, he had a working prototype up and running, er, tuning, in about
>>> six months.
>>>
>>> Only problems were that it was gawdawful ugly, added circa three
>>> pounds to the guitar, had to be turned off while you were actually
>>> playing, ate new batteries like crazy, and couldn't be reproduced for
>>> less than a couple of thousand 1972 dollars -not counting the guitar
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> In a word: "impractical".
>>>
>>> Q: Is there something wrong with simply learning how to tune your
>>> guitar?
>>>
>>> ~Pete
>>
>> No...I don't think that's the problem...I think people are becoming too
>> lazy to turn the machine heads.
>>>
>
> Being able to change tunings on the fly has obvious advantages.
>
> I think allot of people missed the point with this technology.
>
> Olddog
To be truthful, I do not have an opinion either way...I was just being
facetious.
|
|
|
|
Re: I guess the original self tuning Gibsons did suck - Twibil - 16:46 14-11-08
|
|
On Nov 14, 9:24=A0am, RichCI <ric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. =A0Wouldn't it be nice to be able to play in different tunings
> at a gig without having to drag around extra guitars or stop in the
> middle of a set to retune to the alternate tuning? =A0For that matter,
> wouldn't it be nice to not have to take up time between songs to tune
> with even a standard tuner when the crowd is jumping and the energy is
> really going? =A0Lead singer: =A0"Hey, hold up people! =A0The guitar play
> has to just tune up for a minute! =A0Soooooo... How's everybody feelin'
> tonight!?"
Grin. You need to hire a front man who can really handle a crowd.
Done right, the tuning breaks can be almost as entertaining as the
tunes themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
