Page 1 of 2
#2
I'm not pro or anti automatic tuning, it is just another bit of tech.

But I do agree with one of the comments made questioning adding weight to the headstock. I mean, if I were a guitar company adopting/introducing this technology, I'd probably make the guitar headless, and have the whole automatic tuning mechanism and battery housing on the body. Better for balance, I would think.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#4
True, I think theres a number of factors that sour people on this. One being its forced on new models of LP's. Unless you want to pay 6500 for the Supreme or the Derek Trucks SG or the Firebird. I believe this will hurt the resale value of of 2015s which scares people.
#5
I had bought a used 2013 SG Standard with the last version of min-e-tune. Although cool and I can definitely see the appeal for some, I found it unstable. Sure, I can tune in 10 seconds or less, but what's the point if I have to do so after only 3 or 5 songs? Needless to say I went and bought some Kluson's and took off the robot tuner. Good to know I can put the guitar down and come back 30 minutes later and it'll still be in tune now. I don't know if any of you have seen what Gibson have been saying about this new system, but they're basically saying that if you take it off, your guitar will lose sustain, be harder to intonate, generally will suck a big one unless you keep it on there. What a crock of shite.
#6
The tech isn't terrible. Forcing it onto your customers is. I had a Robot SG and liked it, but not enough to keep it. Would not buy a new Gibson that had the G-Force on it.

They're shooting themselves in the foot so badly by ignoring customers who would prefer not to have the G-Force.
#7
Good products don't need to justify their own existence.

It sucks so bad that it's hard to find a Gibson that doesn't have this system.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
#8
It's not hard at all! Just don't buy a new one.

Buying a used Gibson has always been the way to go anyway.
#9
Well yeah, I was referring to the new ones though.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
#11
I'm shopping for a Gibson, I justify paying more money to my wife by saying "Don't worry beautiful, they hold there value. So if I get rid of it we won't lose anything." I don't think this argument will hold for 2015 LPs. All is well though I have to buy used as I'm looking for an Explorer and they don't have a model this year (at least that I have seen)
#12
Quote by Roc8995
I think we should refuse to acknowledge that the new ones exist.

Hopefully the distributors won't either by not stocking them. They know they won't sell so what's the point of stocking them?

But alas, they will. And people will buy them. Poor bastards.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Oct 7, 2014,
#14
\it'll be interesting to see how 2015 sales go. Faithful Gibson LP lovers will most likely refuse to purchase and Gibson may get some new customers but they'd better have enough money to pay for this years rate hike.
Moving on.....
#15
2015 Les Pauls? What's that, ken?
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
#16
So what do you do when the eltronic tuner evetually fails? And it will fail. It looks chincy anyway. Kind of like one of those stupid "extras" that manufacturers will use to make a cheap product look better because of more options. Just a marketing ploy and I don't think people are going to like it.
Last edited by columbiar at Oct 7, 2014,
#17
Quote by dannyalcatraz
I'm not pro or anti automatic tuning, it is just another bit of tech.

But I do agree with one of the comments made questioning adding weight to the headstock. I mean, if I were a guitar company adopting/introducing this technology, I'd probably make the guitar headless, and have the whole automatic tuning mechanism and battery housing on the body. Better for balance, I would think.



THIS 1000X. There are a lot of sections in our performance where things like clapping and such take over during a song. I CANNOT let go of my sg and clap like my LP and Tele. The headstock dips immediately (a little faster than an SG normally does). Lately I just GIVE my guitar to our tour hand and run in the crowd to get them jazzed up.

That being said, it is really awesome. I find it very accurate and very stable.
Splawn Street Rod
H&K Tubemeister 5
Line 6 G90 System

Gibson SG Standard
Godin Radiator
Dillion 653 GA/3CT
Seagull Coastline s6
New Music on Spotify
#18
Quote by columbiar
So what do you do when the eltronic tuner evetually fails? And it will fail. It looks chincy anyway. Kind of like one of those stupid "extras" that manufacturers will use to make a cheap product look better because of more options. Just a marketing ploy and I don't think people are going to like it.

They seem fairly solidly built, or at least the one I had did, I haven't gotten my hands on the 2015 version.
Your point stands, though - what happens in 20 years when a part breaks? Gibson says they'll continue to stock parts and do repairs, but what if they don't? What about in 5 years when the battery stops holding a charge? Do we trust Gibson enough to replace it for us, because they super duper promised they'd leave some parts around? Or will they have moved on to another piece of technology?

I don't want my guitar to go obsolete. That's not a happy thought on guitars that are supposed to be heirloom instruments.
#19
Quote by luckotdraw
I got this email today from Gibson, thought id share this with those who may not have gotten it.
I feel like im looking at a snake oil sales pitch lol

http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Five-Ways-I-was-Wrong-About-Automatic-Tuning.aspx?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gibson%20Brands,%20Inc.&utm_content=Editorial+eBlast+-+October+7%2C+2014


Gibson put out something like this about a year ago as well. Seems they have to have an apologist write up a short article on behalf of automagic tuning about that often.

I can't reply to Craig Anderton directly, but since I had someone ask me why I didn't care for the MinETune (GString, whatever), I pointed out that I had three Variax guitars, one of which is the current JTV-89F (F= Floyd).

First, a MinETune won't work on a guitar that has a Floyd. Well it will, but if you want to tune, you have to undo the locking nut, run the tuner, then lock down the locking nut and then deal with the fact that the locking nut often pushes everything sharp, so you still have to adjust the fine tuners and there you are.

Second, a guitar that has a Floyd will not go out of tune nearly as often as a stock Les Paul. The LP headstock design, with strings being pulled at an angle out of the nut, was never intended for the way we bend strings. The MinETune does nothing to solve that, and in fact, if the nut has moved a string sharp, the MinETune will loosen it, then tighten it up again, and as soon as you bend a string, it's back out of tune, and the MinETune really has little to do with it. You need to grease the nut, cut it just so, and then it STILL might go *tink* when it recovers from a bend.

The MinETune does a few alternate tunings. You select the one you want, strum the strings for a bit and there you have it. Unfortunately, if you've gone UP in tuning, you now have more string tension and it's harder to bend. If you've gone DOWN in tuning, it isn't long before you have a floppy mess. You're very limited in how FAR up and down you can go (and in the string gauges you can use to do so). You can not use the MinETune (as mentioned earlier) to do alternate tunings on a Floyd, and it's a mess to try to use it on any other trem. But you can store a tuning that you use often.

So what happens with the Variax when you want to do an alternate tuning? As far as the strings go, nothing. They stay tuned to whatever you had them tuned to before you decided to go alternate. The Variax can drop tune up to at least an octave, and it can go upward, I dunno, five or six steps? MUCH greater range. With the MinETune, you strum a while until it figures out that it's got the strings repositioned where it needs them. With the Variax the alternate tuning is instant. There and back immediately. With the MinETune, you have some strings that are floppy and some that will slice cheese (a wonderful surprise when you try to bend...OUCH!). With the Variax string tension hasn't changed. And if you've got a Floyd, you simply use it as before. And you can store tunings that you use often, either on the guitar itself or as user presets in, say, a Pod HD500X.

For me, the MinETune doesn't make sense.

For Craig Anderton, it's heaven on earth.

And a paycheck from Gibson.
#20
Quote by JustRooster
Headless is gross.




It's cool for Halloween...
Great for Punkin' Chunkin'.
And it *really* messes with facial recognition software when you don't have one.

It's just a matter of what we've gotten familiar with.

A headless Carvin "Holdsworth" is on my short list. In 31" they have a full-on 25.5" scale guitar with a 24-fret board. It's also 5.1 lbs (without a trem). The body is a bit strange and whole guitar reminds me of the scene in the original "The Blob" with Steve McQueen, where the farmer pokes at the broken-open meteorite goo with a stick. But I don't have to worry about whacking a cymbal, a mike stand or someone else on stage with a fragile headstock...
Last edited by dspellman at Oct 8, 2014,
#21
Quote by dspellman
It's cool for Halloween...
Great for Punkin' Chunkin'.





Argument conceded. You're correct.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#22
Quote by Roc8995
They seem fairly solidly built, or at least the one I had did, I haven't gotten my hands on the 2015 version.
Your point stands, though - what happens in 20 years when a part breaks? Gibson says they'll continue to stock parts and do repairs, but what if they don't? What about in 5 years when the battery stops holding a charge? Do we trust Gibson enough to replace it for us, because they super duper promised they'd leave some parts around? .


Heed this warning.

For a while it was nearly impossible to get a Robot guitar fixed. Gibson was so uptight about keeping the technology proprietary that you had to ship the guitar back to Gibson if you broke a tuner (and people definitely did break those things). Gibson is not a technology company; they do NOT support the technology in their guitars (Dork Star and Dust Tiger owners alert) because they didn't develop it themselves.

MinETune was originally "PowerTune", then an exclusive contract with Gibson had the Powertune folks calling it Robot. Since the exclusive contract is apparently up, Gibson has variously called it MinETune and now GFarce, but the company that originated it is Tronical, and you can buy the gizmo for other guitars (including Fenders, etc.) directly from Tronical as the TronicalTune. Pull up Tronical.com

Gibson played with auto-tuning before this -- in the early 90's, they introduced the TransPerformance bridge, which used motors in the bridge to autotune the guitar. Jimmy Page was the spokesperson for Gibson for this. This setup required about half the guitar body to be routed away (that's not an exaggeration) and had control systems in the upper bout as well. The whole thing wasn't received all that well, and you can't get parts for it from Gibson, of course, and new TransPerformance hardware won't fit in the old guitars.

TransPerformance itself, as originally constructed, exists no longer. The intellectual property was bought out by AxCent Tuning Systems in August, 2008. I don't think you can get parts for the original bridge from AxCent, but maybe. They have a whole different setup that does the same things (tunes your guitar via bridge motors rather than tuner motors) but takes up a much smaller space inside the body of the guitar.

In case you're interested, here's part of the routing that went into the UPPER part of the guitar for the control bits (the back bottom from the bridge pickup down was nearly all cut out as well). Note that you can see THROUGH the rout on the side of the guitar to the router table behind the guitar:



And here's the bridge on the guitar:







Two things more. Yes, that is a PHOTO finish on the top of the guitar. And Never Ever ask me how I know so much about this stupid thing. What I can tell you is that in 1995, this bridge *added* $3500 to the cost of a Les Paul.
Last edited by dspellman at Oct 8, 2014,
#23
Thanks for the history lesson, so this guitar was made available to the public?
#25
Big knowledge bomb, there. Thanks!
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#26
The best line I read about this was on the Gibson site where somebody posted that G Force was an acronym for "Gibson Forced Me To Buy It".

I have been burned several time with products that seemed promising. In the late 60's my first decent amp was a Gibson GSS 100. it had a unique idea at the time. The head was supposed to 100 watts (I doubt it) and it came with two cabinets that each contained two 10" speakers. Gibson promoted that you could also buy additional cabinets that contained another 50 watt amp and two 10" speakers and you could build up your system. In all the years I had that amp I never saw the promised 50 watt extension cabinets. Another product with great promise was offered in 1969 by Ampeg it was a Dan Armstrong guitar. I bought one the early 70's. You've probably seen one as Keith Richards often played one back then (the body was clear acrylic). It had a unique concept. The pickups were interchangeable by just pulling them out of a slot on the body and popping in a different Ampeg pickup. The one I bought came with a "Treble" pickup. It wasn't a very good sound but the guitar played well. I bought it used and figured I would buy several of the different pickups availble. Unfortunately by the time I bought my guitar Ameg had stopped making them and I couldn't get the pickups. It was useless to me and I traded it in.

That's just a few examples of what has taken place over the years when a manufacturer markets a product that turns out to be unpopular and stops making them. The G Force could be the same thing.
Attachments:
ampegguitarbody.jpg
gss 100.jpg
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Oct 8, 2014,
#28
The Amgeg guitar had a nice feel and a very nice low action neck. The guitar played well but with that one pickup it was like playing on the bridge pickup of a Strat maybe even brighter. If I coukld have gotten other pickups I would have kept it. The pickups just poped in and out in 5 seconds. Cool idea.
Attachments:
ampeg-front-460-85.jpg
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Oct 8, 2014,
#29
Quote by dspellman
Transperformance history lesson

Cool stuff.

Dat backrouting tho



Goddamn.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
#30
Luke: There is still good in him.
Obi-Wan: He's more machine now than man. Twisted and evil.
#31
Quote by Roc8995
Luke: There is still good in him.
Obi-Wan: He's more machine now than man. Twisted and evil.


Amazing....

That back route is ridiculous.
#32
That is a really forward thinking move with interchangeable pups. That's an idea that should be revisited.
#34
Yes, the G-Force will probably not be in production for very long because a flop seems fairly inevitable, but dspellman's comparison, though very knowledgeable, halts in that the G-Force system allows the tuners to be used as normal tuners without any modifications anytime, like in the case of a battery failure. And furthermore, it does not require extensive modifications to be replaced with normal tuners. This isn't the Robot or Firebird X-stuff.

Bottom line: Your guitar will not be unuseable if/when the G-Force-thing breaks.

The downsides that it leaves us with is the small cost of retrofitting standard tuners, plus the added cost of the G-Force up front. Not exactly the end of the world. In most areas, it is daily life.
"Your signature can not be longer than 250 characters."

How you know you have too many guitars...

Apparently once also known as PonyFan #834553.
#35
Except the brass nut...which is apparently a nightmare if not using G-Force, conjecture mind you, but this all stems from poor judgement on Gibson. I personally won't be paying a 23 % increase to have to replace tuners and then possibly figure out what has to be done with nut/neck. Its insane that they would take this route.
#36
Quote by luckotdraw
Except the brass nut...which is apparently a nightmare if not using G-Force, conjecture mind you, but this all stems from poor judgement on Gibson. I personally won't be paying a 23 % increase to have to replace tuners and then possibly figure out what has to be done with nut/neck. Its insane that they would take this route.

Brass was a common replacement nut material on guitars in the 70's. And they do sound good. It makes the open strings sound a lot like fretted notes, which is obviously desirable. But granted it isn't the best material in the world for tuning stability. Brass nuts need to be oiled.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
#38
Seems to me like a lot of crap for nothing. Buy a guitar that stays in tune (lol from my exp..not a gibson) I prefer locking nuts and fine tuners
#39
If these don't sell well, I'll bet they will begin offering with or without versions pretty quickly.
#40
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Brass was a common replacement nut material on guitars in the 70's. And they do sound good. It makes the open strings sound a lot like fretted notes, which is obviously desirable. But granted it isn't the best material in the world for tuning stability. Brass nuts need to be oiled.


Yngwie Malmsteen has been using brass nuts since forever, and his signature model has them stock so I wouldn't worry. I have never actually heard of any reasons for not using a brass nut other than supposed brighter tone and that it is harder to work on.
"Your signature can not be longer than 250 characters."

How you know you have too many guitars...

Apparently once also known as PonyFan #834553.
Last edited by HomerSGR at Oct 8, 2014,
Page 1 of 2