I have a Peavey AT-200 Guitar with Auto-Tune here

[Mark L]

You're a funny guy, Terence

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally Posted by MikeRivers

I listened to your latest examples, and I've gotta say that I didn't like any of the sounds. Nothing there sounded like a guitar to me. I particularly didn't like the sound when it was playing an octave lower than the actual note. It reminded me of a bass part played on on a 20 year old keyboard synth. Now I suppose that these sounds might work in the context of certain songs, but if this is what it sounds like as an electric guitar, I'm not enthusiastic. In the mean time, I'll try to get more impressed by listening to your examples in the control room with some good speakers instead of on the computer with some mediocre speakers.

 

That sounded about like I thought it would when it was an octave down. It seems to track well. I don't like the sound of something that has been digitally transposed an octave down, so if you feel that this is a bias, great. The Jaco thing could be usable. It's not my thing. Could be useful for someone, I suppose, but that would not be the selling point for me. Bear in mind that I'm not interested in buying a guitar like this, simply interested in hearing it and finding out where this technology goes.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by MikeRivers

I listened to your latest examples, and I've gotta say that I didn't like any of the sounds. Nothing there sounded like a guitar to me.

They were all through presets from AmpliTube. I didn't put any effort into making them sound wonderful. The first preset was intended for the high strings and processed the bass as well. The Jaco one was playing around I personally wouldn't use that bass sound, but it was so whacked-out I thought it would be fun. The third one was everything transposed down five semitones, so of course it's not going to sound like a guitar, that's the point - standard guitars aren't tuned down five semitones. But, the bands that tune down through things like the Morpheus pedal or other transposing options (or just by tuning down the strings, if they don't want to go too far) is because they want that darker sound.

How about doing another example that's as clean and boring as it gets. That way I can put it through an amplifier or play around with a simulator as if it were a good guitar going straight into a DI to be messed with later.

That could be arranged, but given how few guitars of any kind are ever played "au naturel," it seemed unrepresentative.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by MrKnobs

Well, I'm kind of a hypocrite on this issue as I gig using a Roland VG-88 and on some songs I use the pitch shift function to transpose (our singer never puts her capo in the same place twice) and on other songs I use a 12 string patch to add 5ths to the top strings and octave down to the low strings (try THAT with your Antares guitar!)

I don't see why that wouldn't be possible with their doubling options.

If you mentioned that you can split the strings and hear both the natural sound and the shifted sound, then I missed it. And if so, then that would mean you can simultaneously record the uneffected and shifted guitar and post a clip with both in it (perhaps in a stereo MP3 with the two panned far left and right).

The way the guitar stands now, you either use the passive pickups, or the Auto-Tuned out. Given that the main point is to correct for out of tune guitars, I don't think it was a design priority to be able to hear the out of tune and in tune sounds at the same time; it seems the passive pickup outs are there for those who want a "pure" guitar sound from the same guitar, as well as being a fail-safe if the board malfunctions or batteries die (if you're not using the breakout box).

That said, I don't think it would be a difficult hack to bring out the passive pickups separately...who knows, maybe the breakout box will do that.

Craig will say at some point (and he'll be right) that amp sims model what a mic put in front of the amp hears, not what the player hears, of course, so it's the recorded sounds that must be compared.

Yup. However, slowly but surely, I'm figuring out how to take that modeled sound and put it in a "room." All that work is probably for nothing, though, as now I can just stick a mic in front of the DT25

The other advantage of the VG system in this regard is that since both the effected and non effected note can be heard at the same time, then a little more computation and it's easily possible to create harmonies in real time.

Again, we'll see what the software brings. Based on this screen shot, it seems to imply you can turn the Solid Tune (intonation/consonance) feature off; also, toward the right, there's the option to select individual strings, and a pitch shift slider. Hmmm....

One more question, and please forgive me if it's already answered somewhere. Does the Antares system have a hex pickup? Seems like it would have to. And if so, is there a hex out? Is it a ROLAND style hex out?

It does use hex, but it doesn't have a GK out. Whether the breakout box gives access to each string is something I don't know, but given the price, I doubt it.

Remember, this is a $500 guitar and I suspect a lot of the intended market is beginner to intermediate guitarists who don't want to hassle with tuning, can get lots of different sounds out of their guitar, do alternate tunings, and some other crazy stuff on top of that. Whether the high-end guitar from Parker will compete more with something like a Roland system is something I don't know.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't think that downtuning anything digitally by an octave or even five semi-tones is going to sound natural, so I don't know that one should really approach it like that. I think it's more like, "Is this useful to me?" To me, it's not. But to someone else, perhaps that first example is something where someone might say, "Hmmm, I can approach this sort of like a Chapman Stick, where I can accompany myself." Perhaps someone like Stanley Jordan or a Chapman stick player or Scott Huckabay or someone perhaps not even like that might find that useful or compelling.

When one is evaluating something new like this, it might be good to consider who might find it useful (and why), and not just whether we might find it useful.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Remember, this is a $500 guitar and I suspect a lot of the intended market is beginner to intermediate guitarists who don't want to hassle with tuning, can get lots of different sounds out of their guitar, do alternate tunings, and some other crazy stuff on top of that. Whether the high-end guitar from Parker will compete more with something like a Roland system is something I don't know.

That said....I should hope that someone who is a beginner - and especially someone who is an intermediate guitarist - would want to "hassle with tuning". Jayzus. If you can't handle six strings, play a damn bass!!!!

It's one thing if you have a pesky string that continually goes out of tune due to hot lights on you during a gig, and another to be an intermediate guitarist who doesn't want to "hassle with tuning"!!!!!

>

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

I don't think that downtuning anything digitally by an octave or even five semi-tones is going to sound natural, so I don't know that one should really approach it like that. I think it's more like, "Is this useful to me?"

 

Good point. I actually use transposition quite a bit to add different flavors. I got into the habit with background vocals because I didn't want to sound like four of me, so I'd transpose the track down a semitone, record the vocal, then pitch the combination back up again. I've also discovered the joys of using Sonar's V-Vocal formant processor, which is independent from the pitch processing. So, for me, being able to get different "guitar-like" timbres while still being able to use standard guitar fingerings and technique is a plus .

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

That said....I should hope that someone who is a beginner - and especially someone who is an intermediate guitarist - would want to "hassle with tuning". Jayzus. If you can't handle six strings, play a damn bass!!!!

It's one thing if you have a pesky string that continually goes out of tune due to hot lights on you during a gig, and another to be an intermediate guitarist who doesn't want to "hassle with tuning"!!!!!

Well, of course anyone should learn the fundamentals. But last night I had an idea for a riff, and Sonar was open. I picked up the AT-200, plugged it into the interface, was tuned within two seconds, and recording in five - without having to worry about whether I'd find out later whether it was in tune or not. That's pretty liberating, and definitely qualifies as "not hassling with tuning."

Like so many different kinda things, the applications and value (or lack thereof) don't really sink in until you've actually had a chance to use it.

[UstadKhanAli]

So you're not hoping for a really fun scenario like this?

Andy has been playing the Peavey AT-200 for a few months, a fun gift that he received from his mother for his birthday. Andy goes over to his friend's house, sees a dusty acoustic guitar, and asks, "Hey, can I try that?" "Sure, it's been sitting around for months though and is completely out of tune." Andy picks it up, strums it once, producing a hellishly out of tune "chord" that even Yoko Ono would find challenging to sing to. "WTF!" Andy yells out. "THIS has never happened before!!!! What's wrong with this thing!!!"

Ahem. Just kidding.

No, I see your point with throwing down an idea quickly. It'd be handy too when the weather is shifting or there's hot lights affecting the guitar. Maybe it might make a good back-up guitar for gigging. See, still approaching it like "Is this useful to me?"

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

See, still approaching it like "Is this useful to me?"

 

Well, you always have been rational and intelligent.

[UstadKhanAli]

Not always. It seems to come and go.

[MrKnobs]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Remember, this is a $500 guitar and I suspect a lot of the intended market is beginner to intermediate guitarists who don't want to hassle with tuning, can get lots of different sounds out of their guitar, do alternate tunings, and some other crazy stuff on top of that. Whether the high-end guitar from Parker will compete more with something like a Roland system is something I don't know.

Wouldn't cost much to put a Roland hex out on it, maybe. And at $500, it should compete fantastically well with the $900 street piece of junk Roland GC-1 (basically a Squier Strat with a Roland hex pickup) or any of the much more expensive piezo Roland ready guitars like my Brian Moore i2.13. I'd buy one immediately. Heck, it's $200 for a Roland add on hex pickup! Having a decent guitar attached would be worth the $300 more.

Terry D.

[MikeRivers]

Originally Posted by Anderton

They were all through presets from AmpliTube. I didn't put any effort into making them sound wonderful.

That explains part of it. What you use for your own "real" work, I expect, is pretty tasteful though your quickie illustrations tend toward the more dramatic. Makes it easier to hear a different sound when listening on small computer speakers, as most of us do, at least initially, when encountering them on a forum.

The third one was everything transposed down five semitones, so of course it's not going to sound like a guitar, that's the point - standard guitars aren't tuned down five semitones. But, the bands that tune down through things like the Morpheus pedal or other transposing options (or just by tuning down the strings, if they don't want to go too far) is because they want that darker sound.

My problem with the tuned-down example wasn't that it sounded "dark," but rather sounded processed rather than just lower pitched. I guess I'd describe it as "rough." I guess musicians who do that with a pedal are used to that sound, and like I said, out of context, there's probably some stuff that I'm hearing that I wouldn't hear or wouldn't be bothered by in a mix.

That could be arranged, but given how few guitars of any kind are ever played "au naturel," it seemed unrepresentative.

Well, but if you're using an amp simulator or playing the guitar through an amp, you're probalby going to start with a natural sound. And the AT-200 certainly has a variety of "natural" sounds on its own. When you play "California single coil" directly into an amplifier, does it sound like you're playing a Stratocaster (I guess that's what the code name means)? You can muck that up all you want when you're working on a song, but it's good to know what you're starting from.

Like Ken, I'm not interested in buying one, but I'm interested in the technology and how well they're doing the job they set out to do.

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by MikeRivers

That explains part of it. What you use for your own "real" work, I expect, is pretty tasteful though your quickie illustrations tend toward the more dramatic. Makes it easier to hear a different sound when listening on small computer speakers, as most of us do, at least initially, when encountering them on a forum.

 

You can hear my tasteful amp sim tones on the music videos posted on my YouTube channel

[Markdude]

Craig,

Do you happen to know if the model you played had brand new strings on it? If it did (or even if it didn't or you don't know), did you have any trouble with the strings losing pitch (in real life) and that causing the Auto Tune to not correct notes properly?

I've been extremely excited about this guitar and have been anxious to finally get my hands on one (I have a really sensitive ear to intonation, plus I love strange chord voicings). Mine arrived today and I'm pretty disappointed.

I ask about the new strings/tuning because it's one possible explanation to why the Auto Tune doesn't seem to be correcting as much as it should. Since this guitar is straight from the factory, the strings still need to be stretched and played so that they'll settle and stop slipping. I was under the impression that the system would only stop tuning a string if it goes sharp rather than flat, in order to allow for bends and vibratos, but perhaps I'm wrong and the slippage is affecting it too. It seems to be the worst on the low E string. If I play simple power chords, it won't even tune those properly - the low E string still wavers in and out of tune considerably. I've tried detuning the guitar significantly on purpose (in a random fashion) and pressing down on the pot to activate the tuning system, and I can definitely hear it kick in. Even with the strings totally out of wack, strings 1-5 sound pretty close to being in tune. But as soon as I play any chord that uses the sixth string, I can hear it beating.

UPDATE: I've been playing for a good hour and a half now (and have stopped and stretched/bent the strings every few minutes) and the strings seem to be settled. They stay tuned to pitch now. However, even with all the open strings being in tune, the low E string still seems to be out of tune when I fret it. Once again, even power chords sound pretty bad. I'm guessing the guitar itself just has a pretty bad setup, but isn't that supposed to not matter? I thought the point of this guitar was that whether your intonation is awful, decent, or great, it will be (nearly) perfect with the Auto Tuning. What gives?

The other reason that I'm disappointed is because of the tone. When I have the pickup in passive mode (and it's just functioning like a normal guitar), it sounds fantastic. Great frequency response and tons of harmonics - a very lively tone. As you said in your review, when the active Auto Tune mode is activated, the frequency response changes quite a bit. I was expecting that since I had read about it beforehand, but the difference is drastic...and it's not a good one. It sounds really muffled and congested. I did a quick (admittedly not very scientific) analysis and it looks like the Auto Tune mode essentially has a low pass somewhere around 4-5 khz! My high gain tones sound muddy and my mid gain and clean tones are dull and boring; they have absolutely no sheen. I've tried applying a high shelf EQ to the DI track, like you had mentioned, and it did work decently. However, I record about half of my tracks through a POD HD, so I can't process the guitar signal before it hits that. I've tried using the POD's virtual EQ pedals but none of them really have the proper frequency ranges to fix it. All they seem to be able to do is make the guitar sound like it's running through a cocked wah pedal, or boost tons of noise and still not affect the upper mids and treble very much. Speaking of which, even with all gear and settings being the same, the active Auto Tune mode brings quite a lot of noise into the signal too.

I know that Peavey has started talking about future firmware upgrades and software packages that will integrate with the guitar, featuring pickup modeling. That's great and all, but I really don't even want the bells and whistles. I just want a good frequency response to come from the pickups when in active Auto Tune mode. A rolloff at 4-5 khz is simply unacceptable to me and I'm sure it is to many others too. And the fact that these software packages are going to be released leads me to believe that it's not a technological limitation; Peavey can do it, but chose to purposely keep the stock version this way. I don't think it's a bad thing that they want to give players the opportunity to buy software packages to expand their tonal options, but it does rub me the wrong way that it looks like I'm going to have to pay just to have ONE good quality tone at my disposal. I feel peeved that I am expected to cough up more money to get a "Modern Humbucker" (one of the pickup options in the software I'm talking about) when I just bought a brand new guitar...that has humbuckers! Why can't that one just come installed stock on these guitars? The stock tone isn't just one shade of many possible others; it's a flat-out inhibiting tone. No other electric guitar worth its salt has pickups as dull as these (in Auto Tune mode).

Anyway, I know I'm ranting. I apologize. I should probably direct that at Peavey instead of you guys. But anyway, I just wanted to know if you had any problems like this, specifically the tuning discrepancies I talked about.

[Anderton]

As I understand it, Auto-Tune has two different ways of dealing with tuning. One is the basic "tune the strings" aspect that takes a "snapshot" of the strings, and figures out what correction to add. If the strings stretch and go out of tune, then you need to "refresh" Auto-Tune and tell it to tune again. Robot tuning works the same way, albeit with totally different technology.

The Solid Tune thing is a separate component, and can be turned on and off with the controller. With the current software, it's on all the time so I'm not sure how dependent it is on the original tuning data.

Having persistent problems with the low E string sounds to me like a problem with the hex pickup. I definitely have no problems with the E string staying in tune with everything else, as you may have heard in the audio examples. The AT-200 is a very new product and I would encourage you to check with your dealer about that E string, and try a different guitar to see if you experience the same problem.

As noted the high frequency response is duller, so I just turn up the EQ if I need more presence. However, there's also a built-in advantage. With amp sims, I don't have to use EQ to reduce the highs for a cleaner distorted sound. Granted, it's not a big deal to add pre-amp sim EQ, but it works well.

I've attached an audio example that unlike the previous ones, are just the naked gutar sound except that treble shelving is turned up to restore brightness. The first part uses the middle pickup position, and the second uses the treble pickup position. This is recorded direct using Apollo. With an amp, it would be a different story; most amps roll off naturally at 4-5kHz, so the guitar would sound duller than it does when going direct. I also posted this for the benefit of those who want to hear just the "au naturel" guitar sound.

BTW don't tune the strings with Auto-Tune on. I learned that lesson recently.

[UstadKhanAli]

I know it's a brave new world, but I'm still not used to guitars requiring firmware updates.

This also reminds me of when digital cameras were relatively new, and I overheard someone who was attempting to take a group picture say, "Oh, sorry, hold on a minute....my camera just crashed!"

[MikeRivers]

 

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

I know it's a brave new world, but I'm still not used to guitars requiring firmware updates.

 

I think its genetic modification to the wood.