Page 441 of 441
#17601
Quote by btnuckolls
So, I've always wondered why guitars don't have wireless built in, or at least a plug in module, something akin to a active pickup battery, but use the truss rod as the antenna?  Would be so nice not to worry about a broken antenna (under normal usage    Is there actually something wrong with this idea?


it's impractical, it's more expensive for manufacturers (read: way more expensive for buyers), will typically result in a net tone loss compared to high-quality cables (unless it's a really well-built wireless, which it won't be, because they're compromising quality for convenience and gimmick-factor), and it's too easy to mix up signals if you don't have a recepticle (which most people, myself included, don't want to fork out just so we don't trip over a cable)
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#17602
Hail Well if the MFG could agree on a standard, all you need would be a pocket milled into the top half of the instrument, lots of wood there.  Just have two metal pads > > for the module to slide over and make contact.  Less than $5 to mill a pocket once it is on the mill.  Just an extra cut.  and a wire to a metal bushing on the truss rod base for the antenna.  Buy what ever 3rd party wireless you like, but no more broken wires, I'd love to see it.

Sounds like your a cable lover, nothing wrong with that.   But would be a nice option IMHO.


Not for $150 guitars, but in the $450+ would probably work.
#17603
Quote by btnuckolls
Hail Well if the MFG could agree on a standard, all you need would be a pocket milled into the top half of the instrument, lots of wood there.  Just have two metal pads > > for the module to slide over and make contact.  Less than $5 to mill a pocket once it is on the mill.  Just an extra cut.  and a wire to a metal bushing on the truss rod base for the antenna.  Buy what ever 3rd party wireless you like, but no more broken wires, I'd love to see it.

Sounds like your a cable lover, nothing wrong with that.   But would be a nice option IMHO.


Not for $150 guitars, but in the $450+ would probably work.


i don't think you understand how manufacturing prices works. every gimmick included on a guitar is specifically to a) mark the price up or b) lower the price they put into other aspects of the guitar. this remains true of almost all guitars up until around the $1300-1800 benchmark, though a lot of musicians with signature guitars are apparently trying really hard to keep the standards high and prices low for parts nowadays.

they do the same thing when they make computers. that's why when you go shopping for a computer, something will have a 2TB harddrive and 16gigs of ram but no info on the processor. this is because harddrives and ram are cheap, and the average joe doesn't realize that a 1.3ghz dual-core processor is unacceptable and that they're gonna have to buy a new computer before long if they want to do anything but get on facebook and navigate all the spyware that inevitably comes with the purchase

if you have a guitar with a good floyd rose being sold for the same price as a hardtail, they cut at least, but like more, than the cost of the floyd rose out on another aspect of the instrument, be that shoddier tuners, non-stainless frets, a 1-piece neck, a lower quality body wood, etc. that's basically the mantra of budget guitar brands like Dean and Schecter
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#17604
Quote by btnuckolls
Sounds like your a cable lover, nothing wrong with that.   But would be a nice option IMHO.


Not for $150 guitars, but in the $450+ would probably work.


Not a cable lover. Someone that just likes realistic and logical ideas rather than half baked gimmicks. First of all, cables really are not a huge deal. Also with your idea, you still need cables running between everything except for the guitar and wireless receiver so realistically you have almost the same amount of cables. And you would still need a cable to connect your other guitars without wireless unless you plan on retrofitting all your older instruments. Not to mention manufacturers won't just jump on a gimmick bandwagon until the gimmick proves to be profitable--a very big if--so it might be several years before there are more than two or three models available with the technology, so you would have to retrofit new instruments as well unless you want to be stuck with three different models. And the cost of retrofitting an instrument for such a modification would cost hundreds.

The benefits would be minimal anyway since you most likely are not standing more than 10-20 feet from your amp/pedal board until you're playing some seriously big stages, and even on big stages many guitarists are not particularly mobile, so the "freedom" of wireless is a moot point for 99.9% of situations.

Do know realistically what wireless systems cost for a consumer? Probably more than you think. Part of this cost is also the consumer chipping in to make up for what went into research and development, which for something like this would be a lot more than you probably thought, if you even considered that. A $450 guitar with a wireless system would either have a near worthless wireless system on a mediocre guitar or an alright but not great wireless system on a piece of trash guitar.

There are really no real advantages to the idea in 99.9% of situations and plenty of disadvantages. Any guitar company would realize that and so chances are no company would dive into what is in all likelihood a guaranteed financial bomb because they know that consumers aren't going to pick up the idea just like that.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#17605
First of all, I am very familiar with wireless setups for vocals, guitars, and bass.  I am very familiar with the costs involved.  I thought I would get a more intelligent response than Wireless costs so much money, it really isn't feasible in more than 99.9% of musicians applications.  If that were true, we would not have wireless solutions available.  I'm talking small change and a new idea, maybe new concepts are a horror for you, if so, please don't respond.  Looking for an actual guitar builder to respond.   Strapping backs to your back and hoping the battery pack clip doesn't break or dealing with cleaning duct tape off to change your battery, broken antennas, extra gear to have strapped around your body is just so draconian I'm surprised we haven't come up with a better solution.  
#17606
Quote by btnuckolls
Strapping backs to your back and hoping the battery pack clip doesn't break or dealing with cleaning duct tape off to change your battery, broken antennas, extra gear to have strapped around your body is just so draconian I'm surprised we haven't come up with a better solution.  


you could just use a cable. a mogami is gonna sound better for hundreds of dollars less, be reliable, and allow for maneuverability as long as you understand stage control.

it sounds like you just use cheap POS wirelesses for no reason and want an excuse for them to be viable, really, but they're of almost no benefit to actual gigging musicians unless you're playing stadiums, in which case you can get a custom instrument however the hell you want

it's not that it costs too much money. it's that it's a) not profitable, b) a bad idea, c) inefficient, and d) there's 0 demand. the only people i see bringing wireless set-ups to normal gigs are trust fund babies - even touring musicians with their own soundguys tend towards cables because it's just one less variable to worry about going wrong. people want simple, reliable, cheap set-ups so they can always have a back-up. i'd rather have 5 mogamis than an OK wireless system any day.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
Last edited by Hail at Jul 27, 2017,
#17607
Quote by btnuckolls
I thought I would get a more intelligent response than Wireless costs so much money, it really isn't feasible in more than 99.9% of musicians applications.  If that were true, we would not have wireless solutions available.


There's a difference in cost between an outboard wireless unit and an inboard wireless unit. Also notice how many guitarists use wireless units, including gigging musicians and professional musicians. Wireless has one minor advantage and many disadvantages.

maybe new concepts are a horror for you, if so, please don't respond.


Maybe the idea that people will disagree with your idea based on their experience and based on simple logistics is something that you aren't capable of dealing with. If so, please don't put your ideas out there until you are ready for criticism.

An actual guitar builder or someone working at a big company like Fender or Ibanez or whatever would have the exact same concerns and would find the exact same lack of pros and abundance of cons as we would. And they would scrutinize things like cost of development, advertisement, etc versus the actual demand and therefore the potential to make a return on their investment even more than we would.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#17608
Calling out to you, People of the sun...
It would be awesome to get your thoughts on this mystical new tune my band Fire In Her Eyes have been working on:
PEOPLE OF THE SUN - [url="(Invalid video video code);feature=youtu.be];feature=youtu.be
#17609
fireinhereyes

It's decent. The vocals are neat. Reminds me of the vocals my friend does on some of my death and funeral doom recordings. The lyrics are kind of silly and meaningless. The one thing that is definitely noticeable is that, in terms of frequency, there is a lot of empty space, particularly in the low end, so despite layering and reverb, it sounds sonically a bit thin. Something like a cello or the low notes of a harp to fill in would do a lot of good. A little bit of light percussion could have also been useful. Something like a goblet drum of some type played with the fingers in the traditional middle eastern style.

Also having some sort of lead to fill in between the vocals or provide counterpoint could have been very effective. I'd imagine a soft flute like panpipes or a shakuhachi wold have been cool. Another string instrument could have worked as well, particularly something that would contrast with the guitar. I don't like the idea of something bowed, so either something softer like, again, a harp or something brighter or more percussive like a kora, hammered dulcimer, or kanun would have perfect.

Overall there are definitely improvements that could be made, but it's a solid foundation. A lot better and certainly fresher than most of the original music people post on this site. If you have never listened to them, checking out Dead Can Dance and Niyaz is something I strongly suggest.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Last edited by theogonia777 at Aug 12, 2017,
#17610
theogonia777 Thank you for your feedback Will definitely listen to your advice - this particular version is an acoustic version of the song but we intend to produce it properly with drums, extra instruments to balance out the frequencies and tidy up the vocals. 
#17611
yeah, it really doesn't need much. one well-done hand percussion track would change the whole song
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#17612
Quote by jonriley64
E minor pent still covers the ii-V-I in C (the high B note he hits at 2:56 makes a nice expressive maj7 on the C chord). It doesn't quite fit F13, and I haven't worked out what he plays on that; nor on the F#m7-B7 (from around 3:03), where he hilariously runs his hand through his hair while playing with left hand only (poseur ).
gonna jump on this from the closed "Tender Surrender" thread

It's more F13#11-F#m7-Bm7 there
#17613
NeoMvsEu
The chords given in the Alien Love Secrets tab book are
F9#11 F#m7 B7sus4

What's played on the F9#11 is some slidey/legato stuff with the left hand, then some right hand taps which are a tritone above the note being fretted below.
On the B7sus4 it's pull-offs to the open B string, starting at 12th fret, 14, 15, slide up to 22 and come back down.

Oh, and the Cmaj7 is written with the triangle!
#17614
Hello everyone!

Anyone can help me? I'm studying theory but it seems i'm stuck understanding something more!

I wanted to write a simple progression in the key of F using maj/min 7 chords to make it kind of jazzy sounded.

So, my progression is: 6-2-5-1

Dmin7 - Gmin7 - Cmaj7 - Fmaj7

Now, judging from the key, this should be correct but when i play that Cmaj7 chord it sounds off, if i play a C7 instead it sounds correct

As far as i'm studying towards these things i still don't get why this happens

One thing i noticed today studying is that C Myxolydian seems to have those exact same chords i'm using (with C7 instead of Cmaj7) but it's still in the key of C so i would have to resolve in C when i need to resolve in F!

What am i missing?
#17615
takasutakagiu Something is off with your thought process. The C is indeed supposed to be a C7 - that's called a dominant chord and it's always a dom7 chord that's a fifth above the root chord.

And C mixolydian does have the exact same chords, in fact it has the exact same notes as well. They're relative scales, meaning that they have the same notes in a different order, hence a different scale. Those are also known as modes, but I wouldn't look too much into modes yet.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#17616
NSpen1, if you read the notes, you see B-C#-D-A. It's clearly Bm7; wherever the sus4 came from is beyond me. Again, transcriptions, particularly chord descriptions within them, can be incorrect.

9#11 vs 13#11 - there are D notes in there, so I would give latitude in this specific case

====
takasutakagiu

F major contains
F G A Bb C D E (repeat)

Using the roots D G C F to make seventh chords:

D F A C = Dm7
G Bb D F = Gm7
C E G Bb = C7
F A C E = Fmaj7

also, yes agreed with Kev, while C mixo and F major have the same notes, you're in F major, and major/minor is most useful/the most straightforward path, since most modern music uses just major/minor (keys).
#17617
So whenever i'm creating progressions i have to bear in mind that 5th degree it's always a Dominant? For 7th chords at least?

That's what i miss, is this a rule or a case in which it occurs? (ex. in the F major scale)

thanks!

edit:

NeoMvsEu

So, if i'm getting it correctly

I'm not able to use the Cmaj7 chord because it has B instead of Bb and B it's not a note in the scale?

I'm kind of confused, i'm looking at lot of videos and suchs but it looks like they all miss a point or i'm stubborn in learning the proper way! Could you and Keväthuri (and whoever feel like helping) get more deep in this to give a good brief explanation?
Last edited by takasutakagiu at Sep 15, 2017,
#17618
Yo guys! New question!

Can’t decide between two busking amplifier (batteries working ones)

I’ve tried a Roland Cube Street (299&euro and
a Fender Passport Mini (135€ second hand)

they both sounded loud and nice

the price is an important matter but here’s my question

i’ve tried both with AC and i’ve heard the passport loses power and volume when you use battery instead, also the passport uses C Type Batteries and i don’t know if it makes some difference

the Roland Street Con is the price

help?
#17619
you can always go with the classic pignose
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#17620
What do you plan on playing even?
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.