Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

New Developments in Music Technology 218

Posted by michael from the hypercello dept.
jonerik writes "The Christian Science Monitor has this article on acoustic and electronic music technology, including a visit to MIT's Hyperinstruments lab, which has developed a series of Music Shapers; ball-shaped musical toys which are covered with 'a patented thread containing sensors that react to the way the child handles them. The child manipulates a preprogrammed "little seed" of music and helps it "grow" by the way he or she shapes it.' Also worth a read is this article (free reg required) on the Line 6 series of bass and guitar amp emulators, which do a pretty decent job of mimicking various amp or amp/stack combos; from a '53 Fender Deluxe to a mid-'60s Vox AC-30 to the sludgy murk of a '70s Orange stack. 'Line 6 uses a technology called modeling to measure the characteristics of a particular vintage amp, from the distortion of its original tubes to the resonance of its speaker cabinet. The company has developed a way to reproduce those measurements in a powerful D.S.P., or digital signal processing, chip that contains models of dozens of classic amps.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Developments in Music Technology More

New Developments in Music Technology

Comments Filter:

  • Coming from a tube amp bigot... (Score:5, Informative)

    by sawilson ( 317999 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:40PM (#5407269) Homepage
    I bought a line6 over a marshall about 3.2 seconds
    after pluging into one. It's also nice not having
    to redo your tube bias if you accidentally knock
    the thing. It's great for touring. If you play
    guitar, you have to try one of the line6 amps
    out. Also, it's got really cool blinking lights.
    • Anything with blinking lights is cool. Heck, selling just the blinking lights themselves makes for the christmas light industry!

      Come to think of it, I bet putting blinking lights on a remote-controlled bomb and wheeling it into Afganistan would have been more effective at taking out Osama Bin Laden than sending in the army..."Hey, Osama! Look what we found! Isn't it cool?!"

    • Re:Coming from a tube amp bigot... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:51PM (#5407380)
      Amps come and go, but I stand by my reasons for keeping the Fender Deluxe that I've had since 1976. I do like to use cab simulator effects, but there's something important about the gestalt of a guitar, an analog distortion pedal, and a tube amp, that you just do not get with any other gear.

      There's also the fact that my Deluxe is loud as fuck and has only failed me once in almost 30 years (a power supply problem in 1981.)

    • Same here. I've had a Vetta Combo for over a year, and I'm still in love with it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: no good wah sounds (Score:2, Insightful)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 )
        I think this is a symptom of a larger problem.... There's just not enough of a market for effects and stomp-boxes to encourage the kind of R&D needed to get awesome/realistic sounds out of today's gear.

        I mean, you only have to take a look at the synthesizer business to get an idea what I'm talking about.

        Korg basically hired *one guy* to come up with all of the sounds used in their Triton and Karma synth workstations - and these are their flagship units!

        When you're looking at something like a wah pedal that'll sell for under $149 or so, retail, when it's all said and done - how much are you going to pour into design research on it? Don't forget the fact that these things will only end up being sold mail order through musician's catalogs and at music stores. People won't be picking them up at their local WalMart or Best Buy store.

        Right now, if I was a tube amp manufacturer, I'd probably try to maximize my return by recycling tried and true designs that I already kow sound good to most people. The majority of my buyers are either going to be A) younger kids who never heard the original design from 20-30 years ago anyway, or B) working musicians who are trying to replace their old gear that finally wore out - and would likely buy a new "work/sound-alike" of their old standby.

        For something as cheap as a stomp-box or wah pedal though, I'd just have an E.E. throw together a cheap to build circuit that sounded "good enough" and go with it.

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @03:43PM (#5408511)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Ok, so maybe *one person* programming all the Korg Triton/Karma sounds was an exaggeration - but it still seems to be scarily close to accurate.

            For example, look at all the people out there working their butts off to create top-notch sound patches for these synths, and despite practically begging for jobs in forums devoted to the synths, they aren't getting hired.

            (For just one example, go to www.irishacts.com and look at that guy's devotion to the Korg line!)

            Korg has customer service reps regularly reading the forums these people post on, so they can't claim "We never knew these guys were out there!"

            The fact is, they're on a pretty tight budget for R&D of these things, and most folks who try to make a living out of developing patches for synth workstations have to start their own businesses. Then, *maybe*, you'll get paid to work on one project for a synth maker - or maybe not. It's not like they're eagerly hiring on every talented patch-developer they can get their hands on.... They've got too much of a niche market for their products.
    • am I going to kick in an amp emulator? Well where's the fun in that? How many chicks are going to be impressed by that?

      I'm going to go lie down now.

    • Yamaha has got a similar line in amps like the Line6. I don't remeber the model, I'm not a musician. A friend of mine has it and absolutely loves it.
    • My first "real" amp was a '68 Fender Bassman with a 4X12 cabinet. Sounded really great, but was loud as hell. I tried taming it with a powersoak (resistive dummy load) but kept hearing that a powersoak will kill your amp. Then I bought a THC Hot Plate (an inductive/resistive dummy load) which was a HUGE improvement tonewise. The problem is still that the rig is tube powered and heavy and space intensive. And as much as I LOVE the tone of a tube amp, it will always sound the same way.

      I decided to start looking at modeling amps. I bought a Korg Pandora as an easy way to have something that sounded like a variety of amps that I could carry in my pocket. After that, I made the leap and bought a Line6 Pod. I LOVE the pod!!!

      It sounds a LOT like my Fender amp and a Marshall AND a Mesa Boogie AND a whole lot more amps than I could fit into a room and costs a WHOLE lot less.

      Those with golden ears will always poo-poo modeling amps, but for us regular folk, modeling amps will let you play with sounds you couldn't achieve before.
    • It would have been good for me (back in the day) because I only wanted classic amp sounds as effects to complement my own sound, which derives from heavily customized amps. There never were any off the rack amps which did what I wanted, although some Boogies were close. I found a mad scientist (well, mad engineer anyway) who built me the amp of my dreams. Turns out I was a hybrid guy. I wanted EL34C (or at least 6L6) warmth (even harmonics) combined with solid state edge (odd harmonics). We went with old Music Man combo amps, which have hybrid preamps (mostly solid state with one 12AX7) and tube power amps. He also added a stereo effects loop, which I sent to a stock Roland Jazz Chorus for the clean sound. In between the channels I typically used a couple of microseconds delay or microtonal harmonization to fatten the sound even more. The end result was HUGE. It inspired outfreakage in everyone I ever played with.
    • I bought a line6 over a marshall about 3.2 seconds

      Most amp models neglect the key - overdriving the tube power amp and driving the output transformer into saturation. Any tube amp designer worth their salt knows that you design an amp around the output transformer - that's where the sound comes from, not just the tubes.

      I took my amp to a shop and wanted to buy a new set of tubes. I swapped out all their preamp tubes and wasn't happy. Then I swapped some power amp tubes - WOW did that make a difference. There was more flexibility in the tone with power amp tubes than with preamp tubes.

      Many amp models only take the preamp stage distortion into account. They neglect the power amp stage distortion, which is where the key to the sound is. This is where the guitar becomes a living breathing thing.

      The new Marshalls don't have near the same sound as the old 60s models. I heard a '69 plexi and can confirm that they have a unique bark that no new Marshall or amp modeler has yet to approximate.

      IMO the acid test of amp modellers is the "Boogie" model, aka "California" to avoid trademark infringement. My 1979 Mesa Boogie MkIIa still kicks their digital ass, nothing comes close to the real thing. I'm primarily a keyboard player but I can still hear the difference. The one that does come close is Tech21.

      An interesting note is all the traditional amp makers - Marshall, Vox, Fender - now offer a modelling amp. Mesa Boogie wisely chose to avoid this fad.


      • I took my amp to a shop and wanted to buy a new set of tubes. I swapped out all their preamp tubes and wasn't happy. Then I swapped some power amp tubes - WOW did that make a difference. There was more flexibility in the tone with power amp tubes than with preamp tubes.
        Absolutely. Also power amp tubes, typically 6L6s in the US, give a much smoother tone when overdriven. The 12AX7s you find in preamps sound at once thinner and more jagged in saturation. I remember when I was young some company came out with a tube distortion pedal. I looked at the specs and it had a single 12AX7 inside. I figured it wouldn't sound good. When I did finally hear one I was unimpressed.
        Many amp models only take the preamp stage distortion into account. They neglect the power amp stage distortion, which is where the key to the sound is. This is where the guitar becomes a living breathing thing.
        I agree. But in the hands of a good EE the preamp can work wonders too. That was what amazed me about my hot-rodded Music Man. My amp guy rewired the hybrid preamp to squeeze every bit of solid state odd harmonics nastiness out of it, then drove the power amp enough to balance it with yummy soft serve 6L6 warmth. It was like a Boogie gone bad.
        The new Marshalls don't have near the same sound as the old 60s models. I heard a '69 plexi and can confirm that they have a unique bark that no new Marshall or amp modeler has yet to approximate.
        I agree, although I've never been that big a Marshall fan. I've heard modified Marshalls that blew stock ones out of the water. Maybe you could get more of that bark with different cones. Some people also swear that EL34 equipped Marshalls sound warmer than 6L6 driven ones.
        IMO the acid test of amp modellers is the "Boogie" model, aka "California" to avoid trademark infringement. My 1979 Mesa Boogie MkIIa still kicks their digital ass, nothing comes close to the real thing. I'm primarily a keyboard player but I can still hear the difference. The one that does come close is Tech21.
        I love Boogies. They are the only off the rack amps I really like for every day use.

  • Asimov? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ggambett ( 611421 )
    This sounds (no pun intended) like that musical instrument played by Magnificus in Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation... I just hope it doesn't have the same consequences :)

    Actually, I'm not sure if he was called Magnificus in the english edition (I have the spanish one) but you know who am I talking about...

  • DMCA compliance? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nikk Name ( 649179 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:42PM (#5407291)
    Do these new microchip-embedded musical instruments comply with the DMCA by including technology that prevents them from being used to play copyrighted music works without proper permission of the copyright owners?

    Do we look forward to the day when the recording industry has intervened with guitar manufacturers and the only guitars you can buy are MIDI guitars that have embedded technology to prevent playing of copyrighted music?

    • Re:DMCA compliance? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Hamfist ( 311248 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:56PM (#5407436)
      At least it would cut down on 'Stairway to Heaven' in every Music Shop.
    • Yeah man, and They are after you.
    • The DMCA does not require any manufacturer to include copy protection schemes except for Macrovision.

      I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but I don't think that spreading misconceptions about the DMCA helps our cause any.
    • Please point out in the story where it says something about including DSP chips in guitars.

      This story is (partly) about how amp manufacturers are including microchips that will emulate how a certain amp *sounds*. IANAL, but I don't think there's a DMCA issue about an amp manufacturer's *interpretation* of how an amp is supposed to sound, is there?

      That kind of begs the question - Can manufacturers somehow copyright the characteristics and artifacts of their amp sound?
    • I'm no technology expect, but I am a musician with some digital music experience, and I'm pretty damn sure that such a thing is impossible.

      First off: MIDI signal only sends information on pitch, note duration and attack velocity. Any other information is interpreted by the synthesizer (hard- or software) and produced as sound. It doesn't carry data about sound quality, that's up the the synth.

      That said, if you play a melody into your imagined setup there has to be some point where the computer red-flags what you're playing, compares it to a staggeringly huge database of known melodies, markes it as copyrighted and cuts off all signal to your speakers. Problem is, there's no way for midi to measure tempo. I could play the same melody at two different speeds and the note relationship would look the same to the database. Melodies aren't unique, far from it. I could change the chords to anything and have something new.

      The problem is one of fuzzy logic and it's a rather nifty catch-22. In order for a piece to be flagged as something you don't have the rights to play, the computer has to be rather lenient in its interpretation of what you're playing (because every live performance of anything will be slightly different). But as soon as that leniency is introduced into the program the results won't be accurate enough to tell for certain.

      Besides, all this'll do will bring back the good ol' accoustic instrumentation, and personally, I say go for it. :)

      Triv
    • Do we look forward to the day when the recording industry has intervened with guitar manufacturers and the only guitars you can buy are MIDI guitars that have embedded technology to prevent playing of copyrighted music?

      Are you paranoid, or just retarded?

      No, I got it. You're karma whoring -- suggest something bad about the recording industry and/or Hilary Rosen's personal hygeine and watch those (+1 Insightful)'s roll it!

  • Popping ecstacy like aspirin... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sgs-Cruz ( 526085 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:43PM (#5407302) Homepage Journal
    ...manipulates a preprogrammed "little seed" of music and helps it "grow" by the way he or she shapes it... I just love this description. It's like the market-speak people have infiltrated already... :D

    This well end up in techno / rave music, I just know it :) DJs can't resist anything technological that makes new sounds... On the other hand, that works out good for me, since I have no musical talent and love techno music...

  • 1) Bash Religion
    2) Skip Article, Bash Topic
    3) ???
    4) Karma!

    -theGreater KarmaWhore.
  • ball-shaped musical toys which are covered with 'a patented thread containing sensors that react to the way the child handles them. The child manipulates a preprogrammed "little seed" of music and helps it "grow" by the way he or she shapes it.
    I'm glad the words 'child' and 'musical' are in that statement, otherwise it would be really NSFW.

    I think I'll go shower now.


  • > Line 6 uses a technology called modeling to measure the characteristics of a particular vintage amp, from the distortion of its original tubes to the resonance of its speaker cabinet. The company has developed a way to reproduce those measurements in a powerful D.S.P., or digital signal processing, chip that contains models of dozens of classic amps.

    Great! Now I can miss a note and make it sound like I missed the note on a classic amp! I want a technology that makes ordinary people sound like classic musicians.

  • 'Line 6 uses a technology called modeling'

    Modeling, eh? I imagine that might have applications throughout science.

  • Amp Modelling Simulators are old news (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:48PM (#5407349) Homepage Journal
    Look here [sospubs.co.uk] for a review of a Line 6 amp simulator way back in October 2000.

    No fee required there, btw.

  • Line6 GuitarPort (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmarklein ( 24314 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:49PM (#5407367)
    The article doesn't mention my favorite Line6 product, the GuitarPort. It's a little box that hooks up to the USB port of your computer on one end, and your guitar on the other. The box is a D/A converter for your guitar sound, which is then fed to your computer. You run GuitarPort software (Windows only) which does the amp modeling and effects on your machine.

    You can use it in combination with a service (pay per month) that lets you download "tones" - amp and effect combinations that model the sounds on specific songs. So you just search for "Comfortably Numb" and you've got a pretty damned good version of the tone. It also comes with tab and backing tracks for a lot of tracks, plus other backing tracks for different chord progressions. Even without subscribing to the service you can rip your own CDs or use your own MP3s and play along to them, and even play them at half speed. Great stuff, and it sells for about $170.

    For more details see this review [audiomidi.com]

    • I like the idea of the GuitarPort, and wish they made a version tailored for the bass. I am sure that Gibson will produce a similar product that uses their new MaGIC system of multichannel digital transmission over Ethernet. The interface box could be much cheaper since it would not need to do an analog-to-digital conversion. They could use a custom DSP instead to provide additional horsepower for realtime effects.

  • Variax (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:50PM (#5407368) Homepage
    Even more interesting is the Variax [line6.com], a guitar that contains a software algorithm to model other guitars. Plugged in, the guitar can sound like a banjo, sitar, '58 Gibson Les Paul, Telecaster, Acoustic 12 string, you get the picture. As in the amps, its not 100% of the original, but this terrain is akin to where we were with computers in 1980.
  • Now my four-year old will be getting membership in the RIAA to protect their musical compositions on this thing.
    • Now my four-year old will be getting membership in the RIAA to protect their musical compositions on this thing.

      Cool. She can be president. She'll do a much better job than the outgoing one [riaa.org], who only seems to have the mentality of a tempermental 2 year old.

      Soko

  • Where can i get a Music Shaper? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it sounds like a cool toy, and i couldn't find it on thinkgeek. and as long as its as cheep as it looks, i would get one ($25US max)

  • Long way to go still. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thai-Pan ( 414112 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:54PM (#5407406) Journal
    This stuff has been around for years and although it is getting quite good, the experienced guitarist can still pick apart a digital and analog amplifier easily. Modeling amps have a limitation where they model only one setting of any one amplifier. They only sound correct at a given setting, and don't respond well to picking dynamics the way a real tube amp does. Tube amps sound so different from day to day, depending on so many variables, and there's just nothing that can come close to emulating that yet.

    I use a Line6 POD in the studio, but outside of headphone jamming and last-second recording, I would much rather plug into my Mesa Mark IV or my Rivera TBR-1SL. Digital amplifiers just don't "feel" right. They don't seem organic enough and sound overprocessed and compressed. They're getting better, and the replacement of tube amps by digital equivalents is inevitable, but that day is not today. Maybe in 5-10 years.

    If you honestly cannot tell the difference between the best digital modeler and the real deal, you do not have a ear for the guitar.
    • You should check out some of Allan Holdsworth's [gnarlygeezer.com] newer stuff. He is undeniably a legend in his own time, and lately he's been using the Yamaha DG-1000s and DG-80s. His tone is as good as it's ever been.

      Granted, I am talking about someone who's never really had a "conventional" guitar tone, anyway, but the point is that the means don't matter nearly as much as the end when it comes to getting good guitar tone. Hell, I used a Johnson J-Station for the clean guitar part on this song [stillthirsty.net] and it turned out fine.

  • Perfect. (Score:3, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:54PM (#5407407) Homepage Journal
    Music Shapers will enable children to more efficiently find frequencies and harmonics with the maximum annoyance factor.

    Honestly, they are just embroidered round pillows, with 70's style designs on them. I'm sure they were originally developed for stoners.

    The Line 6 amp is neat though; any word on when this amazing technology called "modeling" and "DSPs" can be used for other purposes? ;-)
  • Emulating the sound of tube amplifiers is not exactly new. I remember that Crate [crateamps.com] had some pretty cool amps about five years ago that used a set of DIP switches to select an emulation profile.

    Also, a lot of DSP-based digital effects equipment have been offering this technique for years. The problem used to be, and perhaps still is, the quality of the signal. DSPs add a noticeable lag and tend to compress the dynamics of the signal. On digital effects this becomes evident when you compare the raw signal (guitar plugged directly into an amp) with the DSP signal with all effects switched off.

    I suppose these problems will disappear as sample frequency, resolution and processor speeds increase.

    The bottom line, this good be good but I would have to hear it first. Specs don't tell you everything.

  • Same old misconceptions about musical branching (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idealord ( 460644 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:58PM (#5407444) Homepage
    There is this dominant misconception in the experimental music community which equates advancement in interactivity with branching. There is the implication that people want to follow potential branches down certain paths in a musical piece, like they do in a game. When I studied music, one of my teacher, Elliott Carter remarked on this problem that in music there was a 'best branch' and that branch should be the composition.

    I don't believe that people get anything out of explorable musical branching. They miss the powerful attitudes and completeness of the gestalt of the combination performance and composition statement.

    This type of research also mistakenly equates play and exploration with the acquisition of musical knowledge. Playing with layers of music, turning off and on beat patterns, minimalist chord patterns (pretty much what these squishy toys do, btw) does not teach one how to compose. It may teach them to listen, but not in the same way that something like the Suzuki method does. There are plenty of stupid Flash toys on the web which allow you to make music like this. What do you garner from this play?

    To me, this all rings of rationalizing the computing experience as an art education experience by re-thinking musical education in such a radical way that music itself is re-evaluated (to my thinking mis-evaluated).

    And this is research for self-promotion. You'd be amazed how often this guy, Machover gets in the press with these toys and his Hyper-Instruments. Sure, they're fun to play with, but give a kid a drum set and a few lessons and (s)he'll really learn something. Music.

    • Ack. You just put perfectly into words everything I wanted to post here and more. All I have left is:

      One of my friends, who at the time was studying at CalArts, once commented that he saw people spending their lives making new interaction with their instruments but still producing the same old music. One guy made an interface to his synth rig that used interupted lasers as the triggers for midi signals; another, I believe, wired his hands to send notes depending on their positions. At the time my friend was looking for a change; something that wasn't US radio (he found euro jungle - new at the time).

      It's kinda sad that at times we can feel the desprate need for change but can't find the path to make it happen. When we need a change in substance, the first thing we do is change the stick we're poking the old substance with.

  • A "virtual orchestra"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elflet ( 570757 ) <elflet @ n e x t q uestion.net> on Friday February 28, 2003 @01:58PM (#5407448)
    From the article:
    If the musicians strike, the producers say they'll substitute "virtual orchestras" without any live players. They believe audiences won't be able to tell the difference.

    This might apply for some Broadway shows, but the majority of productions depend on the interaction between the conductor and the performers. I perform in a renaissance dance troupe, and not only will our musicians adjust their playing for what we're doing, but there's a palpable energy in our interactions with the band. Actors and dancers aren't machines; performing to recorded music can be unforgiving.

    I also noticed this watching Cirque du Soleil's new production Dralion -- one of the acrobats in a "solo" took a misstep needed and a moment longer to get back into position; the musicians slowed minutely to give him time to recover.

    • performing to recorded music can be unforgiving.
      Absolutely. I've lost count of how many times I've heard a pit orchestra repeat an intro or phrase while the soloist 'caught up.' That's what makes live events worth attending. Otherwise, I'll watch a highly edited performance in my own home.

    • This might apply for some Broadway shows, but the majority of productions depend on the interaction between the conductor and the performers.

      I've seen an interesting device called a Radio Baton being used around here once or twice. It requires some basic coding skills to really use it correctly, but it gives one person quite a bit of control over a whole performance. The basic idea is that you have a recorded sequence of notes in a computer, and whenever you hit a sensitive table with one of the batons, it activates the next note in the sequence. Also, the spot on the table that you hit changes the amplitude of the sound. So one person could ideally control a whole orchestra of sounds and keep the pacing as necessary.

      Here's one website [emf.org] on the device. Google up more if necessary. And if you believe that computer-generated samples will never completely sound like the real thing, check out information on a program called Gigasampler, a revolutionary program which learned to read music samples from ROM instead of RAM, allowing for extremely large and complex samples, far closer than anything else I've heard so far.

  • This is nice, because it might allow parents to see what type of music their kid is into and thus can buy it for them...

    Also, poster of this article, thanks for telling us about the free reg. I get pretty tired of slashdot articles where you click on the link and you have to go back because you have to be registered and don't have the time to. Anyhow, nice job.

  • I hate to point this out, but physical modelling has been around since the mid-80's in music technology research labs like CCRMA [stanford.edu] and CNMAT [berkeley.edu], but only until the early 90's was the technology available to implement the algorithms cheaply.

    Many other companies (specifically synthesizer companies) make products based on modelling - Access Music, Waldorf GmbH, Novation, etc. Don't forget the big boys like Yamaha, Roland, and Korg.

    If you want more information on new technologies in music, I'd suggest looking at Hartmann's [hartmann-music.com] Neuron and related products - they're actually using neural nets and controlled feedback to add musical randomness into the sound.

    Finally, there are other people who have been making unique music instruments for quite some time - but not necessarily for child development. Check out Buchla and Associates [buchla.com] for some really unique instruments.
    • Right, the Karplus-Strong algorithm which is the basis for plucked sound synthesis was discovered in the 70's.

      Amp simulation is basic filter with feedback. This is old stuff...
  • I sincerely hope that this new technology helps to generate some *good* new music. It seems that everything I here these days, is PURE CRAP!!!!!

    Think of how many songs have lasted for 300 years or more. Now, think of how many new songs will last into next week, much less the next decade or century.

    I won't hold my breath..

    • Re:Hope it helps. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How many 300-year-old songs didn't last, though? I bet 99% of it was crap back then too.

  • Linked article full of factual errors (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:04PM (#5407492) Homepage Journal
    Take a look at this quote...

    "Then in 1983, three crucial innovations hit the music world, sparking a digital revolution. PC and Macintosh computers became widely available; Yamaha brought out a keyboard-based music synthesizer called the DX7 that could make an unprecedented number of new sounds; and computer and music companies established MIDI..."

    Well, The DX7 was launched in 1983, but every other 'fact' in that bit is just plain wrong.

    When there are lots of magazines and websites that concentrate on nothing but music technology, how on earth did The Christian Science Monitor get picked as an authority on the subject?
    • The MIT Hype-Musical hype machine is coming soon to your neighborhood.
    • The PC/mac bit is obviously wrong, but the DX7 and MIDI bits seem correct.

      According to this midi history [mtsu.edu], the first midi instrument showed up in december 1982, and the official midi spec was published in 1983.

      BTW, Dave Smith, one of the fathers of MIDI [stanford.edu] (and creator of the famous Prophet 5), is still at it -- check out his latest synth, the Evolver [davesmithinstruments.com], which is a wonderful combination of digital and analogue, and an utterly inspiring little box. Affordable too!
      • The article you linked to has the DX7 appearing in 1984 (most sites that google threw up agree it was actually 1983 though), and MIDI as you say first appearing in the shops in 1982.

        As for the DX7 having 'unprecedented sounds', since it was actually a cut-down version of Yamaha's GX1/DX1 monsters, there was nothing new there sonically. What was revolutionary was the price.

        The Evolver does look very interesting though, that and the Neuron (which might be synthesisng sounds in a genuinely new way, but it's so obscured by marketing hype it is hard to tell yet) that someone else mentioned are probably much more deserving of a /. discussion than the article we ended up with.
        • I think December 1982 is close enough that tagging `1983' as the start of MIDI is fair; clearly it didn't really get going until 1983.

          Saying the DX7 was `unprecented' is a bit of hyperbole, but as far as the mass-market is concerned, it's not far from the truth. Certainly it's the DX7 that had the impact.

          Anyway, I think the point is that the article basically got it right on those two points, even if it's possible to quibble over the fine print.
        • the Neuron (which might be synthesisng sounds in a genuinely new way, but it's so obscured by marketing hype it is hard to tell yet)

          ... and with a street price of over $4000, I'm certainly never going to find out... :-/

  • Musicical Equipment (Score:3, Informative)

    by kaoshin ( 110328 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:08PM (#5407518)
    My guitarist for my favorite band (Thrice) uses Line 6 modelers. They are definitely awesome, and I've demoed a line 6 amp in the shop and it is well worth your money. They are still kind of expensive for someone like me though. But then again, you get what you pay for. For musicians on a budget, I think the drastically cheaper multitrack digital recorders on the market now are much bigger news. I just put in an order for a Fostex MR8 last night. Its a digital multitrack recorder that meets my needs for around $300. I've been doing a lot of feature comparing and review reading and stuff and it is cheaper than some of the others but it is better. Plus it uses compact flash memory instead of some buddy proprietery storage. It has a USB for doing .wav outs. etc.

  • Line6 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fugly ( 118668 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:09PM (#5407531) Homepage
    The Line6 amps/modelers are a step in the right direction. This type of technology is defintely going to replace vintage tube amps eventually.

    It's unfortunate that they sound like shit compared to the real thing. I tried out several of their products recently and nothing touched a real tube amp. It still sounds synthetic and digital.

    They're getting closer though, another 5 years and they might have something.
    • >> It's unfortunate that they sound like shit compared to the real thing. I tried out several of their products recently and nothing touched a real tube amp. It still sounds synthetic and digital.

      I agree. It's frozen fish vs the catch of the day. IMO, we can no better synthesize sounds than we can images - eg, the cave troll in FOTR looks cool, but when frodo is riding it, it looks fake.

      Besides, nothing says rock like a big stack of 'Marshalls' behind you and a sunburst strat in your hand.

      I dont think anything is going to replace the tube fired wall-of-sound onstage, no more than a drum machine will replace the drummer with his big double bass kit. At least not until the last of the true metalheads die off.
    • I analysed the output on a spectrum analyzer compared to recordings of guitars on records (such as the famous Zep 'Heartbreaker' guitar solo) and the Line 6 sounds all had the same characteristic- nothing happening above 6K at all, massive bass boost, and several peculiar suck-outs and irregularities that were common to all amp models.

      My suspicion is that you have to do some of the amplification in the analog domain for serious high-gain guitar sounds, and then do a better job of picking what to model. I'm not impressed with Line 6's choices in that regard, and very unimpressed with the common factors to all models- that's not reasonable.

      It's tough, though. I did an all-analog guitar DI designed specifically to mimic the spectral content of that 'Heartbreaker' guitar solo, and nonmusicians love it, but every musician and sound engineer who's heard it has hated it passionately! Back to the drawing board...

      Eventually it'll get there, but Line 6 POD is a very early step, and it sounds pretty nasty. One thing about them is, I'm told you end up soloing endlessly because it suits single note lines best- try to push harmonically complex chords through it and it gets UGLY.

  • some other interesting software DSP amps.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by dogas ( 312359 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:10PM (#5407535) Homepage

    Amplitube [amplitube.com] is quite awesome at emulating some of the best amps out there. I've started using this as an alternative to mic'ing my triple rectifier at my studio, simply because the amount of control you get is so much greater (IE changing the amp after the guitar was recorded)

    Also, Sonic Foundry's Acoustic Mirror [sonicfoundry.com] does a great job of mimicking any environment, even the charicteristics of a piece of equipment (vintage mic or amp).

    I believe both of these products have demo versions you can try out, and they are both directx plugins (so use with Sound Forge or some other audio editing app).

  • the problem with modellers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pinball Wizard ( 161942 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:11PM (#5407549) Homepage Journal
    Modelling amplifiers like the Line 6 attempt to digitally reproduce the sound of classic analog amplifiers.

    What you get is a sequence of digital slices lined up in a way that mimics the original waveform. The problem is that it sounds grainy and "processed", and its easy to tell the difference between that and the real thing.

    The question is, how fine do the slices need to be cut before you can't tell the difference between a series of digital slices and an analog waveform? If not 24-bit tech, what about 128? Maybe it will be too expensive to truly capture analog sounds with digital technology.

    This is a real problem, because fewer and fewer companies make tubes any more and there are a lot of us guitar players who still are not satisfied with the way these modelling amps sound.

    Perhaps the advent of quantum computing will provide the solution. After all, if something can be both a particle and a wave, then maybe we will have real waveforms to work with in order to create sounds.

    • Thing is, with analog tech, there's always some randomness. A DSP produces the same output every time. The randomness adds a lot of ambiance and reality to the sound, especially when it comes to good old rock n' roll; a little feedback here, a little pop there, a little bit of speaker hum there, and so on.

      The new stuff suits an age where music is created in a boardroom. I guess the days are gone when the guitarist would go into the studio and just 'wing it' (like Jimmy Page winged the Stairway to Heaven solo in 4 takes)

      I dont want my music scientifically created and produced by computers.
    • This is a real problem, because fewer and fewer companies make tubes any more and there are a lot of us guitar players who still are not satisfied with the way these modelling amps sound.



      On the flip side, with every generation of modelling technology, more of these unsatisfied tube purists become satisfied digital modelling customers. The graininess that you talked about was really evident to me in the previous generation. The Line6 Vetta won me over.

      I don't think there will be any reason to look to quantum computing when the next generation DSPs will give plenty of room for model improvement even beyond the Vetta.

    • Internal precision vs. ADC/DAC precision (Score:5, Informative)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7NO@SPAMcornell.edu> on Friday February 28, 2003 @03:19PM (#5408218) Homepage
      24 bits @ 96 KHz is beyond the ability of the human ear to discern any differences.

      In fact, with a good antialiasing filter, 16 bits @ 44.1 KHz will put you below the noise floor of all but the best amplifiers and cover the whole range of human hearing. Problem is, an antialiasing filter suitable for 16/44.1 is VERY tough to design without causing distortions in the range of human hearing. 24/96 is easy to develop a suitable antialiasing filter for.

      Problems ensue when you are processing the data, though. If you process 16-bit data in the DSP with 16 bits of precision, then at every step in the processing chain you'll likely have rounding errors. Such errors accumulate.

      For 16-bit data, I believe most people use DSPs with 24-bit internal precision at a minimum. For 24-bit DSPs, 32 is probably the minimum. I don't know what the likes of Line6's products use. A floating-point DSP would do VERY well for eliminating rounding errors, but those cost $$$.

      Interestingly enough - These amps try to use a model of another amplifier's nonlinearities to emulate the nonlinearities of said amp. In my line of work, we do the exact opposite. (Correcting for nonlinearities in RF amplifiers to minimize distortion of any form.)
      • You're talking about audio reproduction. I was talking about making guitar sounds.

        Guitar amps are and have been lo-fi - otherwise we would be playing through amps similar to the kind you would use with your stereo.

        So basically a modelling amp tries to mimic what an old lo-fi tube amp does. There's a lot more to it than reproducing audio in the sense that you reproduce recorded music. That's not the same thing as reproducing the way an amplifier sounds and responds to a guitar.

        Being as these modelling amps already use 24 bit DAC's and ADC's, yet still fall short of their intended goal, I think my questions about the technology were quite valid.

    • The problem is that it sounds grainy and "processed", and its easy to tell the difference between that and the real thing.

      We've all been using digital recording media with a 'mere' 16 bits precision per sample per channel and 44,100 samples per second for 15-20 years now, and it's been good enough for the majority of the music-listening public.

      Maybe it will be too expensive to truly capture analog sounds with digital technology.

      Trends would suggest that as time passes, it will become cheaper and cheaper to increase digital sound resolution. Affordable home recording equipment is available already that handles multi-track audio at 24-bit resolution, 96KHz sample rate. One day it will be possible and affordable to store digitized music with enough resolution that it will be impossible for anyone to tell the difference between it and analog at any frequency within the range of human hearing.

      Perhaps the advent of quantum computing will provide the solution.

      Do you know what quantum computing is???
  • To go with my banjo...GOD! how could I have been SO shortsighted...

  • Weezer and Line6 (Score:3, Informative)

    by cataBob ( 529363 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:12PM (#5407555) Homepage

    Weezer used line6 equipment on their last tour. Both guitars and bass used Pod Pros. (One of their rack mounted units). They didn't use any amps. They said they a/b'ed the pods against amps and couldn't really tell the difference. In fact, they liked the pods better in some cases.

    One of the main reasons for using the pods is that they got a much "cleaner" stage sound -loud amps are hard to control in the mix. This was essential for them because it was during their wacky tour where they played weird locations like bowling alleys and 7-11's -all small, uncoventional venues.

    Personally, nothing has yet been able to replace a real amp for me...

    • Another thing to consider is versatility on stage. Most guitarists already have a bunch of stomp boxes to change their sound, often many times within the same somg.

      They probably don't record that way, perhaps using different guitars and amplifiers to get the sound they want in the studio. They really don't have any way to do that on stage, after all, changing guitars and amps during a song is a little difficult to pull off, so they use effects boxes to simulate what they would do in the studio.

      I can see the real benefits of doing this type of thing on stage. Let's be honest here, you may be able to hear the difference, but how many people in the audience can, especially at the sound levels they get to listen at?
  • I play bass and I've got a POD Pro that I've been really happy with.

    One of the neat things about it is that when you select an amp model, the bass, treble, drive, and other controls on the POD behave the way those controls would on the real amp.

    Without having played through all of the different amps and cabinets that the POD emulates, it's hard for me to say how accurate all the emulations are. But the SWR model does sound a lot like my SWR amp, and the Ampeg model definitely seems to have the SVT feel to it.

    The manual has an interesting description of all the different amps and cabinets that they modeled, along with some history of the companies and designers that produced them, and some of the well known bands and recordings that used them.

    The SPDIF out (on the Pro model) and all the other in and out connections are really useful. If you play bass or guitar you should check one out.

  • I find it interesting how a lot of the /. crowd so far (~40 posts) seems to like the Line6 modelling amplifiers - it's solid state and techie so I suppose it is natural they're a hit here. Check out alt.guitar.amp, most of those guys aren't nearly as enthusiastic. I've yet to hear one so I can't make a judgment either way...but I do love my JCM900 for what it does best - pure overdriven tube sound at high volume (not practical for many I know).

  • Old fart alert (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chocolate Teapot ( 639869 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:19PM (#5407617) Homepage Journal
    Why not teach our children to play real musical intstruments? Kids thrive on the routine of practice and the challenge of mastering a musical instrument. Not only is it a great education, but it develops coordination and concentration. It is a skill which they will enjoy their entire lives.

    These 'sophisticated hyperinstruments' AKA 'Load of Balls', look to me like re-packaged tamagotchi technology.


    • I don't think you read the article or looked at the website. The idea behind these products is that the $300 Mexican-made Fender Stratocaster that you buy for your kids can sound like a $3500 Epiphone with a little digital tweaking. The kids are still playing real instruments--this product lets you expose them to instruments that most are way beyond most parents' budgets.

      Chris

  • The Cyber-Twin (Score:2, Informative)

    by so1omon ( 577498 )
    Almost bought a Line6 amp a couple of months ago. I was looking for a good second amp (i play through a dual amp rig) because my trusty Fender Deville (along with a ton of other equipment) had been stolen out of the back of our band trailer.

    I HATE digital effects, and being what in people used to call a "shoegazer" band means I use a lot of effects. I'm always tripping over stomp boxes in shows. I'm also a die hard tube amp user, but I thought I'd check out the Line6 and see what all the fuss was about. It was a good amp, and I came REAL close to buying it. Sure, you could tell that it wasn't a pure sound, but it was a GOOD sound.

    I didn't buy it however (can't really afford a new amp at the moment), and had to go back to playing through 1 amp.

    Has anyone played through one of Fender's Cyber-Twin's yet? It supposedly reroutes the analog signal path to achive different amp sounds instead of digitally emulating them. I haven't had the chance to play on one, and I'm wondering how they sound in application.

  • Some of the articles in this thread referred to copyright in the digital audio processed by instruments. This sparked in me a little question regarding music that is partially or entirely MIDI-encoded at source (and in some genres, that's practically all music).

    Which is the original work in these cases from the point of view of copyright, the MIDI or the version published/released on CD? Are they both copyrighted? Clearly the released version carries a copyright, but does the MIDI original as well, or is copyright inherited between representations so that there is just a single copyright, or what?

    Does anyone know how copyright works with respect to MIDI sources?

  • My music work at MIT (Score:2, Informative)

    by bpprice ( 612705 )
    Years ago, I graduated from MIT in EE. I did two projects of some relationship to this article - 1) a thesis on modeling of tube amp behavior and 2) a toy that would "improvise" classic blues endlessly. I was amazed that Minsky in AI loved the blues toy. It was really very simple and drew upon my experience as a local professional guitarist around Boston at the time. I tried to tell them that in my mind it was really a dumb trick, but those experiment music types just couldn't get over it... I got a prize that year. The tube amp was more fun. I used a 1960 Fender Tweed Vibrolux as my subject and created a "block model" of the time/function elements that required combination in a non-linear fashion and left it at that. It involved quite a few long time constants in the description, which is often an area where amp simulators fall apart. At the time, implementing the device in hardware would have been prohibitively expensive, and so I left it on paper and got out of school. I decided not to pursue engineering much after that, other things to do. I have used the Line6 products, and they are very good as the technology progresses. However, they don't really sound or feel that much like my real old Fenders. Instead, they use certain preconceived notions of how people use the amps and cater to those tastes. For example: I don't like to overdrive my old Fender Deluxe Reverb much - that is for rock guys, and I don't do rock anymore. The Line6 products will do a good job of mimicing a "cranked" old amp, but fails to capture the subtlety of one that is instead turned up only to "4". I love that sound! My $0.02
  • ...You slashdotted line6's site!

    Tomorrow you will find a new tone in their database available for download, called "Slashdot," when you pluck a string, nothing happens.
  • I actually like the Line6 series of modelers. Ive worked with both the POD 2.0 and the BassPOD. Both are nice modelers. Their decent enough for live shows (although they really dont replace a nice high end amp) and the fact that you can get swap other peoples programmable models is a nice feature. The PRO model is a little too pricey though, but for home use and jam sessions the POD 2.0 is a good investment.

  • Not for my kids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by migurski ( 545146 ) <mikeNO@SPAMteczno.com> on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:49PM (#5407927) Homepage
    ...ball-shaped musical toys which are covered with 'a patented thread containing sensors that react to the way the child handles them. The child manipulates a preprogrammed "little seed" of music and helps it "grow" by the way he or she shapes it.'

    Okay, I'm not a parent, but I play one on TV.

    I'm not strictly a luddite, either, but I think it's tremendously important that toys given to children not be technological black boxes. The true fallout of the current generation of playstation zombies won't be any sort of attention span issues or predilection towards violence, but the total lack of intellectual stimulation and natural curiousity brought on by the use of toys that discourage (or forbid, thanks to the DMCA) tinkering and explorative destruction/reconstruction.

  • Another tube & audio amp bigot... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KingDaddy'O ( 654233 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:53PM (#5407973)
    Hey - I don't work for any of these companies or own their stock. But I do own several vintage Fender & Marshall amps, tons of discrete audio processing gear, and have a nice home studio. I have to say that my Line6 AxSys 212 amp, coupled with Sonic Foundry's Sound Forge 6 audio software, allows me to tap into an incredible array of sonic possibilities that would be very time consuming and expensive using non-digital technology. Sure, there are some disadvantages (such as the learning curve - digital is very different than analog, but that shouldn't be much of a problem for the ./ crowd) but overall the quality can be amazing. For example, I compared a master tape recording, utilizing a 65' Fender Deluxe Black Panel amp, Sennheiser 421 mics, and multi-track analog tape, against the equivalent Line6 patch (seasoned to taste of course) direct to disk. I could not tell the guitar tracks apart (and yes you can get feedback at low volumes if that's your cup o' tea)! Coupled with the enhanced productivity and relatively low cost, digital modeling is an attractive alternative to the old school way of processing a signal chain. Not to mention that you can do all of this in the privacy of your headphones, or your apartment, or with the baby sleeping, etc. Very high bang for yer' buck ratio, in my opinion.

  • Line6 won the first battle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Van Halen ( 31671 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @02:57PM (#5408020) Journal
    Back when the very first modeling amps came out, there was Johnson [johnson-amp.com] and Line6. The Johnson had real tubes in the preamp section, and for my money, sounded a lot better. I spent a lot of time comparing the two in guitar shops and the Johnson always came out ahead on pure tone. It was also more expensive, unfortunately. I bought a JM150 [johnson-amp.com] back in 1998 and have absolutely loved it.

    Since the Line6 products at the time were cheaper, they sold better. Tube amp purists wouldn't touch either product, so it was left to those of us who either didn't care, or weren't irrationally biased against the fledgling technology. I guess to many people, any difference in sound between the products was worth the savings in buying a Line6. Plus, Line6 seemed to have the far superior marketing team. So while Johnson struggled to carve out their little niche, Line6 grew and flourished.

    Now, unfortunately, Johnson has all but gone out of business [johnson-amp.com] (I believe they were a spin-off of Digitech, which is still going strong). I bought a J-Station [johnson-amp.com] about 2 years ago and have loved it as well. Again, I felt it sounded slightly better than the Line6 Pod, but then maybe I was biased for Johnson by then. It's too bad that they didn't have the marketing team to compete better and stay alive - as many of us here say, diversity and competition is always a good thing.

    Other companies have been entering the fray in the last couple of years (Fender Cyber-Twin, etc), so certainly there is still some competition and great things to look forward to in the future. I'm just a little sad that I won't get to see what the Johnson engineers might have come up with next. Hopefully they're still working on similar things, either at Digitech or other companies.

    One of these days I'll have to pick up a Pod (or whatever the Line6 equivalent is these days) just to add more sounds to my arsenal. Should be great.

  • 10 or 11? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cesaro ( 78578 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @03:01PM (#5408050) Journal
    The real question....

    Does the Line6 amp go to 10 or 11? Because 11 is one louder than 10!

  • Line 6 Guitar Port (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dalroth ( 85450 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @03:10PM (#5408116) Homepage Journal
    I have a Line 6 Guitar Port and all I have to say is that it is absolutely FANTASTIC! For $150 you get 6 classic guitar amps + effects + cabinets emulated 100% digital straight into your recording software and it sounds great.

    Now, of course, you can ALWAYS get a better sound in a recording studio with the real equipment, but you are going to spend $1000's of dollars doing so.

    I wish I had had this thing before I bought my Mesa Boogied DC5 a few years ago. I absolutely hated that guitar amp! If I had had a Line 6 Guitar port, I could have experimented with amps and effects and determined long ago that I should have bought a Marshal amp. I know you can try them out at the store (and you still should), but the hours you can spend with the Guitar Port narrowing down the list of possible candidates is worth it.

    Digital music technology has come a long way (and boy is it getting cheap). If you haven't checked some of this stuff out (especially the Line 6 brand hardware) you're really doing yourself a disservice as a musician.

    Bryan

  • Amp modelling is not new! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @03:10PM (#5408122)
    The company has developed a way to reproduce those measurements in a powerful D.S.P., or digital signal processing, chip that contains models of dozens of classic amps

    Good grief, where have you been? Pick up any equipment catalog and you'll find dozens and dozens of modeling amps, effect boxes, etc. In fact it's tough to find a multi-effect box that doesn't include amp modeling. You can get really good ones for $200. You can even get a guitar (Variax) with modeling built into it, so it can sound like it has single-coil pickup, humbuckers, acoustic, bass, you name it.

    It's all very cool, but it's like Slashdot running a story about flash cards being an amazing new technology.

  • DSP amps are different, useful, but not perfect (Score:3, Informative)

    by JimCricket ( 595111 ) on Friday February 28, 2003 @03:42PM (#5408500)

    I'm a guitarist and have used several of the DSP amp simulators. The untrained ear might not know the difference, but many guitarists definitely do. The amp simulators are getting better all the time, but they will always be simulators and not the real thing.

    HOWEVER, these amps are so convenient that they can help a musician in other ways. Aside from the obvious size & weight issues, it's far easier to experiment with new tones when they're at your fingertips. That makes people more creative, if they don't get too sidetracked by having so many choices.

    Also, DSP technology can create a lot of new tones that vintage amps can't. In this case we're no longer trying to live up to a classic sound, but we're creating something genuinely new.

    Software-based plugins are becoming more popular. Companies like Antares [antarestech.com] and Art & Logic [artlogic.com] are creating some really cool software-based audio plugins.

  • I've been the proud owner of a Johnson Amplifer's J-Station for some time now which is also an amp modeler. Does a good job for $150 bucks, flash upgradeable and sounds great. Fully user programmable presets, and several internet sites have sysex files available for it.

    I've also seen several wars going on between the owners of Line 6's and Johnson's offerings. But both really do a good job for the money.

    -- Rick

  • Line6 Amps and Guitar (Score:2, Informative)

    by Stickster ( 72198 )
    I have been a long-time tube snob, and the Line 6 amps were the first solid state stuff I ever bought. Until Line 6 stuff was well known, guitarists would come up to me in droves at gigs (yes, I actually play in public regularly, and get paid well for it) and compliment the tones. The newest cadre of amps (the Duoverb and the Flextone III) are amazing and really capture the "breath" of the real tube stuff. The modeling improves as the available DSP's get faster.

    The PODs are fantastic, the new PODxt especially, but the proof's in the pudding. Almost every recently-recorded song you hear on the radio or on an album was probably aided with a POD. Engineers love it when I bring them in to the studio because they don't have to work hard to get a great sound that fits perfectly in the mix. I have only heard complaints about the gear on the Internet (go figure), and never from real live working musicians.

    And the new Variax is great. At its current price point it is incapable of replacing a good vintage "real" guitar, but it plays just like any other guitar, and several of the models are dead accurate. The 12-strings are a little off (as would be expected), the banjo, sitar and other resonator models (dobro, tricone) are surprisingly great, and the Strat, Teles, and Les Pauls are unbelievable. And the guitar just feels good; it's not a geek toy that looks like a guitar, it's an actually decent guitar that just happens to do amazing things.

    Put the guitar together with a new Vetta and you just spent about $3,000 to reproduce about $150,000 worth of vintage gear, much of which is more fragile and scary to gig with than the far less expensive Line 6 stuff. I don't work for these guys but I do not hesitate to recommend them to other musicians. If you actually play for pay, you can't afford not to check them out.
  • You get musicians by helping the child grow the seed of music inside them NOT the seed of music outside them.

    Manipulating the seed of music outside might help the seed of music inside grow, but one must not forget the difference between the two.
  • has DRM built in and requires a CC# installed to charge you for playing music the RIAA thinks it owns ? Will it call home when you start strumming Stairway to Heaven to report you for a license violation if you play and someone else hears it ? :)
  • I use it for my gigs, and I've been quite happy with it.

    But when I first got the thing, it has an RJ-45 type jack on the side (unfortunately) for the optional foot pedals. Imagine my potential excitement when I thought that I could possibly hook ethernet into it..

    "You've slashdotted the POD again; reset it back to California, VOX, then back to California again."

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close