WezV Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 wow - anyone would think this was an english teachers forum!! who exactly cares exactly how good the bloody analogies are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Uh, guys.... I think it's time to step back and take a breath? Might I suggest that y'all agree to disagree and drop it before it turns really nasty? Just walk away and leave it alone Good advice I am sure.Though Greg knows that by posting a long winded,pedantic reply,that I will never read it. Anyway,I have said my piece in another thread,I am done with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Summer Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I remember seeing the weight of the tuners somewhere else as well. have i heard that lighter tuners decrease sustain? why would gibson and tronical make lighter tuners when weight at the headstock affects sustain in a positive way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Sounds like the transperformance dts-1 that came out in the 90's, but from what I understood, that device controled the tuning (string tension) at the bridge, not the headstock. I only heard of rock stars having it. $2,500 price tag to have it put on your guitar(in the 90's), and it seemed to be designed for Les Pauls (Jimmy page toured with such an LP). The LP worshipping guy in Cinderella had one on his favorite LP. I can't imagine why putting the system at the headstock end would be better, unless the transperformance patent kept them from doing that. The string angles over the nut on an LP are not the best for tuning stability. I'd have more confidence in a self tuning guitar that was headless with all the workings going on at the bridge. True hands-free tremelo would be nice. I mean with all the strings rapidly going in and out of tune slightly. I assume "b- bender" effects can be done, but then I often find things are more primative than I had assumed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Yes, the Transperformance was at the bridge. What makes the headstock end "better" in my personal opinion is that it simply looks better. The Transperformance unit was a pretty ugly beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmrentis Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 I hope it doesn't automatically start to correct your tuning if you're in the middle of playing a lot of sustained Gilmour-esque bends... What an awkward sound! Why? That could really be an interesting solo and I’m sure someone like “The Edge” or Tom Morello would be happy to employ something like that into their bag of gimmicks LOL, those posts just scared the hell out of me. Imagine you throw a quick bend in as it starts tuning, I can just feel that string slicing through my fingertips, ouch, no thanks! Doubt it would or could happen, I would imagine there is something that prevents it from working while in use. I'll be slightly surprised if these things take off and start becoming a standard, but we shall see. I still want to learn more about them, like how you would set it to different tunings and how easy would it be to switch tuning like between songs and so on. I still think you'll end up going through more nuts and more strings than you would manual tuning. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 I remember seeing the weight of the tuners somewhere else as well. have i heard that lighter tuners decrease sustain? why would gibson and tronical make lighter tuners when weight at the headstock affects sustain in a positive way? On a les paul the balance issues are such that heavy tuners are all it takes to cause a neck dive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killemall8 Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 do none of you read the instructions? it wont just randomly start tuning. you have to have the push pull knob in the up position for it to engage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 do none of you read the instructions? it wont just randomly start tuning. you have to have the push pull knob in the up position for it to engage Plus push the button in the center of the knob, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwdotcomdotnet Posted December 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 looks like they are selling for $2499USD at GC. i figured they would be much much more expensive than that. this is exciting because eventually other companies will start selling their guitars with automatic tuner options, and this will push innovation on the system and costs will come down with the competition and manufacturing quantity. soon schmoes like me will be able to afford something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 dont say that... i just spent loads of money on peterson stroboflip. My robot ear will be redundent if all guitars become tuned by robots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwwdotcomdotnet Posted December 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 i think the idea would be better if they built a physical personification of a robot that came into the room and tuned your guitar whenever you pushed a button. then id buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Summer Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 this guitar is proof that robots will take over the world. first we start em young tuning guitars, and before you know it, they'll have gun rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydrogeoman Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Sounds like the transperformance dts-1 that came out in the 90's, but from what I understood, that device controled the tuning (string tension) at the bridge, not the headstock. I only heard of rock stars having it. $2,500 price tag to have it put on your guitar(in the 90's), and it seemed to be designed for Les Pauls (Jimmy page toured with such an LP). The LP worshipping guy in Cinderella had one on his favorite LP. I can't imagine why putting the system at the headstock end would be better, unless the transperformance patent kept them from doing that. The string angles over the nut on an LP are not the best for tuning stability. I'd have more confidence in a self tuning guitar that was headless with all the workings going on at the bridge. True hands-free tremelo would be nice. I mean with all the strings rapidly going in and out of tune slightly. I assume "b- bender" effects can be done, but then I often find things are more primative than I had assumed. Right you are Soapbar. I used to work with the guy that developed the transperformance "robot." He tried selling the idea to Gibson about 5 years ago. Looks like instead of buying his patent, they just put their R&D guys on it to to create basically the same thing and keep the looks of the LP intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Not quite. Tronical's Powertune is the foundation of the "robot" guitar, and was marketed as a 3rd-party add-on since before Gibson aquired exclusive North American rights to distribution. Gibson didn't 'sic' any dogs on anybody. Though I'm quite sure the appeal was indeed maintaining the instrument's look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubab0y Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 Do pianists tune their own piano? Are mechanics lazy for using automated diagnostics? Are programmers lazy for running automated test cases instead of always clicking every single button of their program? There's a time and a place for automation, and if it were cheaper, this is one of them. Very very few of us would leave it off our guitar if it cost the same as standard tuners and worked properly and without fuss. I know it's on a whole different scale, but tuning your own instrument or not doesn't really say anything about you as a guitarist. For cheaper than 500 quid, I'd definitely let my guitar tune itself! When I tune my guitar for recording, I want it done right, which means breaking out a tuner or virtual tuner anyhow... might as well let the robot do it. Wes inadvertently raises an interesting point, though... Imagine knocking your guitar over or into something and you smack those tuners? That's gotta be an expensive repair. ! Actually, in our jazz band our pianist tunes it. It's a fairly crappy piano, so it's going out of tune all the time. Hence, constant retuning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Posted January 1, 2008 Report Share Posted January 1, 2008 I just wish Gibson would put more intrest into the quility control end of their products.I had a friend buy a $5000.00 guitar and then spent another $300.00 or so trying to get it set up.Not only that, at NAMM they seem to make their area off limits to most of the people there,until 5 pm.Don't get me wrong I would love to own a Les Paul,but it would have to be a early version.I see this gemic as just one more thing to go wrong with a Gibson.It's all about the money IMO,not the quility.and last but not least I will tune my own guitar ,,,,,it would take forever to recoup $2000.00 plus on tuning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted January 1, 2008 Report Share Posted January 1, 2008 I just wish Gibson would put more intrest into the quility control end of their products.I had a friend buy a $5000.00 guitar and then spent another $300.00 or so trying to get it set up.Not only that, at NAMM they seem to make their area off limits to most of the people there,until 5 pm.Don't get me wrong I would love to own a Les Paul,but it would have to be a early version.I see this gemic as just one more thing to go wrong with a Gibson.It's all about the money IMO,not the quility.and last but not least I will tune my own guitar ,,,,,it would take forever to recoup $2000.00 plus on tuning. Which $5,000 guitar did your friend purchase, and how much did he actually pay for it? If you actually test-drive and purchase a poorly setup guitar, quite frankly that's your own fault! And as for an "early" Les Paul, how early are you talking about? You do realize that the first Les Pauls that came out were of very poor quality? Tell you what, go take a tour of the Nashville and Memphis factories and tell me those people don't care about quality after you see the pile of 99% finished guitars that were rejected because of a flaw in the finish or a nick in the fretboard. The system itself doesn't add much to the price of the LP Standard, especially compared to how much it'd cost if you bought the unit direct from Tronical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewu22 Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 If we learned anything from "I,Robot"(the movie,not the Heinlin book)It is that robots can never be trusted...so unless you want to be killed by your own guitar,leave that abomination on the shelf. Besides...what if you were walking through your guitar room naked,accidentally tripped and fell across your guitar,tangling your "sack" in the strings just as you hit the "tune to G" button by accident? It could happen. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I can't believe nobody called me on my mistake there....I robot was Asimov,not Heinlen... Now I AM embarresed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trynyty Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 Score! I got a very low serial number (in the 30s) for the Musician's Friend price! If you have any questions, let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanKirk Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 Like Wes' "sack" example... If there were automatic 'butt wipers' I still would never buy one. What would happen if something went wrong? (I'll let Wes think of possible scenarios) I'll wipe my butt and tune my own guitar tyvm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 What would happen if something went wrong? (I'll let Wes think of possible scenarios) I think My main concern would be that the government would install a monitoring device in the buttwiper and use it to gather info on things like cleanliness,diet,and worst of all sphincter tension....bad,bad news for sodo-fans....big brother in your butthole....wait...that didn't sound right. But once the lobbyists get the ethanol production pushed into full swing,edible corn will be a thing of the past,and without roughage in our diets bedeaux's(sp) will need to be pressurized to at least 100 psi for ensured cleanliness... And to think all of this could be prevented by hydrogen fuel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trynyty Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Like Wes' "sack" example... If there were automatic 'butt wipers' I still would never buy one. What would happen if something went wrong? (I'll let Wes think of possible scenarios) I'll wipe my butt and tune my own guitar tyvm! Not to trounce on the humor, but it is actually a pretty cool thing. There is nothing 'magical' about tuning a guitar. The less maintenance you have to do with a tool, the more you can use it for what it was intended to do. The less time you spend tuning, the more time you spend playing. I've noticed two things with this guitar so far: 1) I play with alternate tuning MUCH more. It is so easy to pop it into a different tuning - pull a knob, push a button, strum the strings and within 10 seconds it is tuned. It makes me a lot more creative. Usually, there would be a high impedance to retuning so I would just keep it tuned the way it was (unless I was going for something specific). 2) It is very easy to keep it in perfect tune. You can always just push a button to spot tune after playing a lot of wildly bending solos. I use to play out of tune a lot more because I'd wait for it to get really bad before retuning -- and even then, it'd just be a quickie tuning because who wants to stop and pull out a strobe tuner when you are in the middle of a jam? All in all, if it wasn't invasive or expensive, I'd put this on EVERY single guitar I own. I have been majorly impressed with the system. Unfortunately, it is both of those things -- so for know it stays as more of a novelty. As for butt wipers, go to a nice hotel in Tokyo. I've heard that once you use one of those automated toilets, you'll want one for the rest of your life. Water jets, heated air, all automated and non-abrasive. I don't know, maybe you like playing with your butthole and rubbing it vigorously with dry paper. Personally, that is something I could do without in my life if I had a viable alternative, but to each his own... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I can't remember the company name, but they're quite the pieces of engineering and apparently kick ... er... butt......... .... .... over using conventional toilet paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.