So what will be the next "revolutionary" guitar technology?

[erksin]

Are people looking to the next big thing in Bassoon technology? What about the Flute? Or Ukelele?

Guitar is lucky I guess in that it lends itself to multiple methods of playing - either acoustic, or electric, or as a controller for other technologies. I don't think there are too many other things left out there to create that will wind up being 'revolutionary' unless we're talking about materials used in making them that sound as good as wood or improving the physical connection between player and instrument/effect/amp. I mean - you can do just about anything with a guitar now to make any noise you wish. Seems to me the only 'improvements' to be made is to try and remove any barriers or limitations to your creativity.

It's a paintbrush. Or a jackhammer. My point is that it is a creative tool for making music. Can you make that tool better and still make something that inspires creativity without engineering all the soul out of it?

[Fender&EHX4ever]

It seems to me the next revolution will be affordable customization. You go to the Fender or Gibson website and build your own guitar via a virtual application... then a few weeks later (yes.. I said weeks)... your custom built and painted guitar arrives at your door. ... because isn't that where we all end up spending our money on guitars? It's not on making them as fancifully filled with technology as possible, but rather sculpting the hardware such that it fits our playing style and personality.

 

 

That is certainly where i am at right now. Im building my first custom guitar. Should be done by the holidays.

[erksin]

How much can "revolutionary" sell, anyway?

 

 

Guitarists for the most part are a very conservative bunch. The instruments considered pinnacles of their genres were made in some cases over 70 years ago. We still favor tube amps for the most part - that's WW2 technology.

[NITROHOLIC]

a big muff hidden in all guitars wouldnt be all that bad

[iMpreno]

It's a paintbrush. Or a jackhammer. My point is that it is a creative tool for making music. Can you make that tool better and still make something that inspires creativity without engineering all the soul out of it?

 

 

I don't know.

 

I think we've nearly perfected the instrument as we know it, but how many of today's guitars would have been considered totally innovative in the fifties?

We haven't done that much in sixty years, and that's probably because of our mindset. And probably because of that very same mindset we can't really see what's next and we don't even look forward to it.

 

Thing is, I can't really answer your question because for me guitar is a tool with such a strong identity that it would be blasphemy to mess with it too much (also, I'm affected by an illness called Synthaxe trauma).

 

Still, I feel that instead of trying to invent the automatic rifle we're losing our time messing with different types of bayonets for our muskets.

[erksin]

Well at some point you wind up 'improving' it in a way to where it's not recognizable as guitar anymore - not that that is bad or doesn't have merit, but it's no longer representative of the inherent qualities of the instrument.

I think there is always going to be guitar-based music and the inclination to 'revolutionize' it beyond what it already is is to move away from the archetype. It's a pretty primal thing, guitar. Yes it makes a lot of different noises, but IMO what makes guitar attractive as an instrument is the actual interface - fingers on strings. Guitar is an instrument that is capable of more expression than just about anything else out there. That to me is the draw - the fact that there are different boxes out there that I can hook up to it is secondary.

[mlabbee]

I find the Variax and modeling cute but nothing more. I have yet to hear someone take it and do something I haven't heard before.

 

 

This is what really kills me about the Variax - they put all this processing power in a guitar and use it to model vintage guitars. Yes, yes, I get the alternate tunings, banjo and sitars, and I know that Line 6's entire mindset/business model is about reproducing existing {censored}, rather than creating something new . . . but still - at least open up the platform so people can monkey with it and come up with new stuff. They did it with the tone core modules and nobody ate their cheese - why not open up the Variax?

[Ech0es]

soon

 

 

http://www.smproaudio.com/index.php/en/products/v-machines

 

http://www.openstomp.com/

 

http://www.line6.com/tcddk/

[spentron]

Yes it makes a lot of different noises, but IMO what makes guitar attractive as an instrument is the actual interface - fingers on strings. Guitar is an instrument that is capable of more expression than just about anything else out there. That to me is the draw - the fact that there are different boxes out there that I can hook up to it is secondary.

 

 

Not exactly, I wouldn't say an acoustic guitar is more expressive than a violin or saxaphone. It's that it's so direct and expressive even when hooked up to electronics, it interacts with the processed sound rather than its tone being just replaced by processed sound.

 

Plus it is one of the most visual instruments, with its playing surface pointed towards the audience.

 

I have some attachment to the basic tube amp'd sound but I started with SS and did like it. Some of the big clean tube amps are too clean for me, although as outboard processing improves this is less an actual problem. I still find it preferable to have access to real tube amp enhancement while wanting the ability to sometimes detach from it.

 

If players go longer and get more skilled before their first tube amp experience, it would seem that electric guitar tone will become less attached to traditional sounds, although this is largely because tube-ish sounds are becoming better on SS, so who knows.

[devi]

http://www.smproaudio.com/index.php/en/products/v-machines http://www.openstomp.com/ http://www.line6.com/tcddk/

 

 

No one's done it right yet.

[Phil O'Keefe]

No one's done it right yet.

Although it's a rackmount, there's also the Muse, which hasn't been mentioned. And it's been very well received - although it's definitely not cheap.

Keeping in mind the general "don't slag on other builders / companies" rule here at HC, I'm curious regarding what you think could be improved on in terms of VST hardware hosts. I'm not trying to start any problems or arguments - just interested in this as a topic for discussion and would be interested in your POV.

[dunnoaname]

In reply to all the sliding pickup comments: DeArmond did it in the 30's whoa.



These pickups/rails go for a pretty penny nowadays.




And the guitar innovation I see ahead will be
-digital effects in intuitive feeling pedals
- guitars with synth access/ midi out etc
- Modular guitar systems with swappable pickup/neck/tonewoods
- synth capabilities like gliss/sustain/arpegiator onboard a guitar
- adjustable temperaments

I know some of these things have been done, but it seems to me not with the right sound/functionality/price.

[soulsonic]

I think pedals like the OpenStomp and the ToneCore are awesome concepts, but the thing is that most stompbox designers such as myself don't know anything about programming. I'd love to sit around and come up with fun new effects for those things, but I don't have any of the know-how to do it.

BUT... if they were to make an intuitive object-oriented editor for building up new effect patches - I'm imagining something like how you build things in Reaktor - then that's something I could work with and a tool like that would be truly valuable and revolutionary to me.

 

I remember reading about Bomb Factory and how they model each component down to the individual resistors of the classic effects they emulate; wouldn't it be amazing to be able to build a new DSP effect by "drawing" the electrical schematic of the thing in the editor and then the program automatically translates that into the required DSP code for the effect to work? That would be the best thing ever, and they're already so close with programs like SPICE and whatnot that emulate and test virtual circuits - this is just taking the next step and translating that virtual circuit into DSP.

THAT would be revolutionary! Produce one box with some generic knobs and a DSP engine in it, and then load all these different effects into at your whim. That's what I want.

[soulsonic]

I realize I'm talking about two different levels of editing here... OpenStomp appears to already have a graphical patch editor like what I'm talking about, but to make new effect blocks from scratch, you're still going to have to know how to code the thing.

[seifukusha]

I think pedals like the OpenStomp and the ToneCore are awesome concepts, but the thing is that most stompbox designers such as myself don't know anything about programming. I'd love to sit around and come up with fun new effects for those things, but I don't have any of the know-how to do it. BUT... if they were to make an intuitive object-oriented editor for building up new effect patches - I'm imagining something like how you build things in Reaktor - then that's something I could work with and a tool like that would be truly valuable and revolutionary to me. I remember reading about Bomb Factory and how they model each component down to the individual resistors of the classic effects they emulate; wouldn't it be amazing to be able to build a new DSP effect by "drawing" the electrical schematic of the thing in the editor and then the program automatically translates that into the required DSP code for the effect to work? That would be the best thing ever, and they're already so close with programs like SPICE and whatnot that emulate and test virtual circuits - this is just taking the next step and translating that virtual circuit into DSP. THAT would be revolutionary! Produce one box with some generic knobs and a DSP engine in it, and then load all these different effects into at your whim. That's what I want.

 

 

true, but most gtr players are content recreating the sounds from the past, and theyre more than happy plugging into a stomp or a line6. i think there are very few people who really want to get into programming for sound. thats why alot of multis have move back to analog controls..

[iblamesummers]

humans will watch robots play guitars on Youtube.

[IamBurnout]

The MUSE is definitely in the right vein.

 

I want a stompbox with an arbitrary amount of tactile control, and the ability to host vsts.

 

Not a dsp editor/programmer, but actual vsts (the same ones that I use on the computer).

 

With the technology available in a cell phone, it shouldn't be asking too much to put it in a stompbox (amplitube on iphone?).

[devi]

Although it's a rackmount, there's also the Muse, which hasn't been mentioned. And it's been very well received - although it's definitely not cheap. Keeping in mind the general "don't slag on other builders / companies" rule here at HC, I'm curious regarding what you think could be improved on in terms of VST hardware hosts. I'm not trying to start any problems or arguments - just interested in this as a topic for discussion and would be interested in your POV.

No one's done it in such a way that is affordable and easy for the average user to understand.

Line 6 does it affordably, but within a relatively closed system.

The Open Stomp is open source to a fault. There's no real incentive for people to develop plugins for anyone other than themselves, and guitarists don't want to program, they want to play.

Then of course there is the software based effects suites that require a computer, or rack mounted processing units that you can load in VSTs... both of which require more bulk and money than the average guitarist wants to shell out.

The future is definitely going to be a simple Open Stomp style box, with the ease and tweakability of a Line 6 unit, but with the downloading (and eventually display power) of an iPod... and the affordability of a multi-fx unit.

The unfortunate truth is the technology is totally here to do such a thing, but the money that it would take to go into such a device is enough that only the big manufacturers would have the ability to make it happen, and from what I've heard from people who know people, they don't see a market in it.

... which is sad, because it's one of those things that if someone did it right (If I had the money, I would have done it years ago)... the market would present itself.

It's still my dream to be the first, but I'm pretty sure a bigger company will get to it before I have the chance.

[mlabbee]

The MUSE is definitely in the right vein. I want a stompbox with an arbitrary amount of tactile control, and the ability to host vsts. Not a dsp editor/programmer, but actual vsts (the same ones that I use on the computer). With the technology available in a cell phone, it shouldn't be asking too much to put it in a stompbox (amplitube on iphone?).

 

 

Bear in mind that the only reason you can get an iPhone for $200 is because AT&T is subsidizing the cost in view of the money they'll be making off your contract. The capability is certainly there (e.g., iPad), but it will cost you at least $500 for now. the prices on these things will come down and the software vendors will undoubtedly begin optimizing their plugins for the lower performance processors that show up in phones and tablets. The hardware will be tough for little vendors to build (sorry Devi), but the code will become more and more of a market . . . I think you'll see tablets become a common piece of musical gear within a year or two - a platform that can handle all sorts of processing. I could really see them causing a resurgence of ROMplers and other hardware tone generators(to handle the big data storage and DSP while they manage MIDI data and user interface).

[devi]

The hardware will be tough for little vendors to build (sorry Devi)

Word. This is the big hurdle, even for the big companies, though we're getting closer and closer.

I mean hell, more and more boutique companies are using digital technology not even dreamed of a decade before.

{censored}, I'm cool if I'm not the one to do it first (though it will be sad to miss that money train), I'm more of a guitarist at the end of the day anyhow, and I just want to see someone do it right.

What I'd love to see happen is Electro Harmonix come out of left field and make it happen. I think if any company would have the capital and creative out-there thinking to make it happen, it'd be EH.

[TravvyBear]

Honestly, I hope the "revolutionary" idea is to go back to what guitar players have loved from the get go. The vintage amps/guitars people have always went for. The whole "They don't make em like they used to" type deal. Why can't we start making them like we used to? It seems like a lot of companies are doing the whole "It's just like that classic amp you know and love only with these cool ({censored}) features" which are generally poorly received. Thats my 2 cents at least.

[triviani]

Someone create a better option to the Fernandez Sustainer - having to devote the neck slot to either a humbucker or single coil sized "dummy" pickup sucks.

That would be great.. Or at least mount it on the bridge pickup!



I would love to see cheaper Teuffel or Moog guitars!

[THAT4301]

Honestly, I hope the "revolutionary" idea is to go back to what guitar players have loved from the get go. The vintage amps/guitars people have always went for. The whole "They don't make em like they used to" type deal. Why can't we start making them like we used to? It seems like a lot of companies are doing the whole "It's just like that classic amp you know and love only with these cool ({censored}) features" which are generally poorly received. Thats my 2 cents at least.

 

 

They absolutely do make them like they used to; you couldn't have afforded them then and you can't afford them now.

 

You want a component for component clone of any Marshall or Fender amp from the 60s and most from the 70s and I promise you can get one; however

 

a) You might miss your mod cons

 

and

 

b) you either need to learn to assemble it yourself or be prepared to pay someone for what could be several solid days intensive skilled work

 

what you CAN'T clone perfectly are:

 

-60s Valves (man up, sovtek valves are great)

 

-60s transformers (you can get a modern equivalent)

 

-The warm feeling inside of playing something you know is older than you are by 2-3x

 

And I don't buy this golden age {censored} at all. You know what 60s Ge fuzz faces are? Misbiased crap for 95% of the time, with leaky transistors. Say hendrix + pals get those good 5%; most people were buying {censored}ty pedals, pretty much. Modern FF clones are vastly superior in my opinion.

[devi]

you don't want a guitar effect 'appstore' do you?

Yes. Yes I do.

If done correctly it would give incentive to fx developers, and give guitarists options beyond their wildest dreams.

Imagine... 99 cents an effect and a marketplace filled with indie and major manufacturer licensed plugins.

I'd sell out in a heart beat and have my fuzzes modeled.

It's going to happen eventually... we're practically there with Boss, Line 6, and Digitech multi-fx.

... I really do believe it's just a matter of waiting for the hardware technology to become more affordable, and stable...

Actually, {censored} that... I think it's already here... once again, would just take the right amount of capital and know how for it all to come together.

Unfortunately the right minds just aren't connecting yet... but they will, and when they do, it's going to be a glorious day for fx lovers.

[THAT4301]

Yes. Yes I do. If done correctly it would give incentive to fx developers, and give guitarists options beyond their wildest dreams.

 

 

I think the chance of it being done 'right' are pretty slim. What you'd get instead are apple-style fascism, and if you think boss are going to go from selling