Members lz4005 Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 Looking through Phil's NAMM photos, this jumped out at me (couldn't link to his pic, this is from elsewhere): It seemed that most HC folks' objection to the Firebird X when it was released was due to its appearance. Is this any better? My opinion: Unless you can do a full gig on one set of batteries, unlike the real-world performance of the Firebird X, it is still a non-functional product. I couldn't care less that it has three different kinds of knobs and four different colored switch-tips, but I can see that OCD folks would run screaming from the room when they see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members danswon Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 Doesn't look as bad as the Firebird X but IMO this is yet another fail from the Gibson designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members w00dsy Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 it's a step up in looks but i don't like how each control is esthetically different. No doubt they did it to make it more obvious for player but it looks inconsistent. Also i haven't heard an effect on there that would make me swap my pedalboard for their own proprietory system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MephitBlue Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 Too many controls and the layout of them doesn't look good at all. It looks like Gibson has found a way to take a naturally beautiful guitar and make it ugly.And honestly, who buys a Les Paul for high tech gimmickery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jpnyc Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Malcolm Ramone Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 Headstock, dot inlays, and goofus controls = fail. -Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ermghoti II Posted January 29, 2013 Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 lz4005 wrote: It seemed that most HC folks' objection to the Firebird X when it was released was due to its appearance. No, that was only a portion of the objection. It was also horribly priced, nobody likes the idea of all-of-your sonic-eggs-in-one-basket, nobody was impressed with the sound quality of the effects, there were serious reliability/obselescence fears, the controls were unweildy... and it also happened to be ugly. This is less ugly, but everything else stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lz4005 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 29, 2013 ermghoti II wrote: No, that was only a portion of the objection. It was also horribly priced, nobody likes the idea of all-of-your sonic-eggs-in-one-basket, nobody was impressed with the sound quality of the effects, there were serious reliability/obselescence fears, the controls were unweildy... and it also happened to be ugly. This is less ugly, but everything else stands. Yes, all those things were brought up, but those with aesthetic objections were, by far, the most vocal.Which is ironic, because most of those other points are completely valid and logical, while the aesthetic one is purely subjective. There are so many bad things about the design of the X platform, appearance should be the least of them.I guess I shouldn't be surprised. HC people are almost always more concerned with how guitars look than how they work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.