Auto-Tuning a guitar is coming, say Antares. But if that seems frightening, it may be worth a closer look. Photo of the (classic) guitar (CC-BY) John W. Tuggle.

A new tool could be for the expressive, not just the lazy. That’s the read of Auto-Tune for guitar, and it makes me excited to see what people will do with it. It could be the advent of the true digital guitar.

Antares teased their efforts to bring Auto-Tune technology to guitars earlier this month, having gotten as far as working proof-of concept. (See Harmony Central’s exclusive video above, and Axetopia, Synthtopia.) I hadn’t worked out anything intelligent to say about it, perhaps because I was cowering in a corner in fear.

As a technologist, I have great respect for what Antares does, and their portfolio goes far beyond just the flagship vocal pitch correction. But suffice to say, Auto-Tune has been used in recording in some pretty unpleasant ways – the fault of the user, not the software, I’d argue. It’s regularly applied in order to suck the life out of great, perfectly-tuned singers, as well as to cover for people who can’t really sing, to the point that producers seem to not understand what the sound of a human voice is in all its complexity. (Case in point: Glee. The talented cast sounds incredible live and onstage, and like they have android stand-ins when they’re on the show. In fact, if you disagree with those uses, please – go use some of Antares’ terrific software for good, not evil, and I’ll write about it.)

Auto-Tune as a name, then, has come to symbolize a revolution, an extraordinary blockbuster of software – and the butt of a joke. So, it’s hard not to see a product called “Auto-Tune for Guitar” and carry some of that bias. Sometimes, as writers we actually need our readers to add some perspective.

Auto-Tune for Guitars could likewise be misused to smooth out some of the guitar’s natural intonation subtleties, though I think the danger is far less so than it is with the voice. But it’s more than that.

Reader Jesse Engel reflects on what it could mean. He notes that the significant advance is building the intelligence into the guitar, not just the computer, and that applications could be varied:

Don’t know if you saw this, but Antares has taken a fresh swipe at HEX guitar, putting a processor in the guitar and using it to do some more modern (Auto-Tune, emulation, etc.) processing. [Ed.: Hex refers to the practice of adding individual pick-ups to each of six strings. -PK]

The hex has been around for a while, but it’s a big deal to use it in this way for guitarists since you don’t need to try to do any polyphonic pitch recognition. Literally direct note access. Also, signals add nonlinearly, so effecting each string individually has a different sound than doing emulation on the mix.

The tech looks like it will help a lot of people fake being better than they are (especially bending to the right note), at the expense of the beautiful imperfections of great playing, but the potential of using hex pickups in these new ways is fun to think about.

The digital guitar has been a vision for a long time, from working out MIDI output to multichannel output. Gibson has been the name behind many of those efforts. Back in January 2004, Wired ran a glowing portrait of Gibson’s efforts in print:

The 100-Megabit Guitar: Gibson’s maverick CEO wants to shove Ethernet up your ax and rock the music world. [Wired 12.1]

It’s worth reading the whole article; the technical limitations of the Gibson system immediately come to light. Suffice to say, that vision never quite came to fruition; Wired even this year claimed that the project had been killed – at least at Gibson. None other than Adrian Freed, OpenSoundControl and alternative instrument design guru at the University of California Berkeley’s CNMAT research center, led the group – he, his colleagues, and his many students go right on innovating with or without Gibson. Updated: I’m not able to find the reference for that story, which I read in print. See comments for commentary by Adrian Freed, who sees otherwise.

At the time, CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, oddly speaking in the third person, pronounced, “Progress will happen. If Henry Juszkiewicz didn’t build a digital guitar, I can assure you the digital guitar would still happen.” That prediction may prove prescient.

The 2007 video below shows the debut of Gibson’s HD.6x-Pro Digital Les Paul – working with individual strings. I also saw a demo with Gibson, Intel, and Cakewalk that used each string in a surround speaker diffusion. It was a psychedelic effect, if not necessarily the most practical demo, but proof that a technology like this could have many uses.

For their part, here’s how Antares describes their technology. Notice that they aren’t only talking intonation, but other applications, as well.

Incorporating our world-renowned Auto-Tune pitch detection and manipulation along with our proprietary modeling technologies, ATG-6 is an entirely DSP-based suite of functions that offer everything you’ve always wanted from a guitar, along with capabilities you never imagined possible. From flawless intonation to astonishing tonal flexibility to alternate tunings that open up entirely new areas of inspiration and creativity, ATG-6 technology seriously expands the flexibility and range of the electric guitar while letting you continue to play your own way.

… Using our new Solid-Tune™ Intonation system, an ATG-6 equipped guitar constantly monitors the precise pitch of each individual string and makes any corrections necessary to ensure that every note of every chord and riff is always in tune, regardless of variables like finger position or pressure or physical limitations of the instrument. As a result, listening to a guitar with Solid-Tune is a revelation, offering a purity of intonation that has simply never before been possible.

Of course, Solid-Tune is smart enough to know when you want to manipulate pitch, so you can play bends and vibrato exactly as you always do. In fact, Solid-Tune Intonation makes it even easier to bend to the right pitch every time.

Antares ATG-6

Updated: Chris Randall chides me on Twitter (and I agree) for not mentioning Roland, specifically — that’s the reference above in Jesse’s from-the-hips comments to “hex” guitar. Roland has built a whole business around products that track notes played on a guitar, adding polyphonic pitch shifters, open tunings, note-by-note replacement, MIDI output, and even DSP effects processing. The difference in the Roland offering is that Roland has done all this work in a separate processing box you connect to their pick-up; Antares appears to be promising something that’s all-in-one in the guitar. And the analysis Antares is doing may well prove more sophisticated than what we’ve seen in the past in terms of distinguishing, say, a bend from different notes. That could open up additional and radically-new expressive possibilities, even if the underlying fundamental concept is more or less the same.

On the other hand, the other difference with the Roland offering relative to both Gibson’s past attempts and Antares’ upcoming ones: Roland successfully shipped and sold theirs. Until Antares does the same, advantage: Roland. We’ll be watching.

  • Dumeril Seven

    My prediction is that the vast majority of guitarists will resist it just as they do every technology innovation, and the critical mass required to really make the tech take off won't be there. They'll reduce guitar Auto-Tune down to cheating. Of course, we do that already with vocal Auto-Tune, but I think that most guitarists will far more intolerant of it. Let's face it, a huge chunk of the guitar market aspires to tools that are essentially Eisenhower era technology.

  • Peter Kirn

    First line of that comment – yes, safe bet. Actually, even before they use it to "cheat"; it may be a challenge to get them to embrace it at all. (And speaking as a tech-addicted keyboardist, that isn't always a bad thing… even, yes, running this site, I say that)  ;)

  • http://shrimps.dummydrome.com B.Leo

    Can't really see how this could be overused in a "cheating" situation. You still have to play the guitar and fret the notes, etc. Sure, it'll help with big bends and such but applications of the human voice and a six-stringed instrument are a world apart. Personally, I'm looking forward to this as being the final frontier in guitar MIDI.

  • Jim Aikin

    The guitarists I know tend to want the real deal, not a simulation. They are extremely sensitive to subtleties of tone and response — to the point where it gets a bit silly, in my opinion. So I'm not sure having a variety of guitar models will appeal to them. A bigger sticking point may be the price. Guitarists are accustomed to wrangling their tone with $100 stompboxes. The prospect of paying several thousand bucks for a gizmo may not hold a lot of appeal.

    With respect to the Auto-Tune functionality itself, you can buy a perfectly swell tuner for $20. That's the competition. Personally I like the idea of retuning notes in a chord to produce some variety of Just Intonation, but there's not much market demand for such a feature — and let's not forget, when you run a JI major 3rd through that stompbox, it isn't going to sound right, because the distortion effect relies on the beating between the pitches.

  • http://www.blastedruin.com Cliffman

    Snork. The Gibson magic stuff always looked like a problem in search of a solution. This looks like more of the same. The imperfections are part of the charm of the guitar, otherwise might as well use samples or a keyboard.

  • Jeff Brown

    The potential here floors me.  This thing needn't be used to correct your bends.  More interesting, IMO, is the prospect of retuning the guitar on the fly.  I've long dreamed of being able to engage a "virtual capo" that would raise the pitch of open strings, but leave other notes unaffected.  Or a "virtual finger", that I could stick on some string, at some fret, to be overridden only when my real fingers are fretting the string.

    A pedalboard hooked up to a Max patch that sends string-specific bend instructions would be Nirvana.  The ultimate awesomeness.  I seriously can't think of anything better.  I pray that Antares provides a MIDI interface for string-specific bend instructions.

    Roland's VG-99 had the potential for what I just described, but didn't let you use it.  Roland offered the math, but gave no interface. I blew a grand on that piece of crap and it just sits in my closet.  I curse them for it (literally — see previous sentence).

  • http://darrenhalm.bandcamp.com Darren Halm

    Wow. Typical hating on guitarists. Just because we can actually play instruments and are the ones getting laid while y'all bedroom wankmeisters turn buttons and hope something exciting happens.

  • Peter Kirn

    @Darren: That wasn't hating on guitarists – not by a longshot. (Uh, otherwise, thanks for the compliment?) 

    The whole point is that the guitar *market* – a market being distinct from any one musician – has rejected a lot of overly technological solutions. One likely explanation is that the guitar as a technology is effectively self-contained, and that lots of fancy solutions may be really peripheral to the point of playing the instrument.

    Incidentally, my understanding is that technology that is more narrowly focused has been a big success – like guitar amp simulation, which replaces traditional gear and serves a fairly traditional (and presumably useful) function. That could be because it's well-suited to the genres the artists are actually playing, and that it allows, for instance, practicing without disturbing neighbors — whereas so much tech has been largely keyboardist/producer centric, and requires a whole other time commitment apart from actually learning to, you know, play music.

    Now, someone please tell a guitarist joke. This is starting to embarrass me, as a keyboardist. (Keyboardists have fewer jokes. I think we usually just *are* the butt of the jokes, personally.)

  • Peter Kirn

    Also, Darren, I'm curious, where the heck did you even see someone "hating" on guitarists in a story that basically slammed the use of Auto-Tune on vocals and comments that predicted guitarists would rather play music than get software to correct their tuning?

  • http://darrenhalm.bandcamp.com Darren Halm

    Dumeril:My prediction is that the vast majority of guitarists will resist it just as they do every technology innovation

    Peter:First line of that comment – yes, safe bet.

    Quite a broad and less than objective statement that Dumeril made and you supported.

  • Peter Kirn

    Yes, it's a safe bet that a radically-new guitar product will have an uphill battle in the marketplace. It's not objective – that's why it's a "bet." (Ask me about my picks on the Kentucky Derby; they – and the favorite – proved wrong.) But "hating"? I don't think so. "Bedroom wankmeisters" turning knobs sounds to me more like hating … and, uh, maybe well-deserved. ("I highly resemble that comment?) ;)

    I do personally see some real potential here, though, if there's a competitive price. The other issue even with the Roland offering is that it's substantially more expensive than just buying a guitar. I spent a long day demoing the Brian Moore guitar with Sibelius (working for Sibelius at the time as an independent contractor) many years ago. The price tag was our biggest obstacle; people got the technology.

  • Peter Kirn

    See additional comment – the Roland solution has been pricey, not always transparent (because of the complexity of what they're doing, though it's gotten better), and requires a whole other clunky box to connect. And it's *still* sold, demonstrating that guitarists are willing to invest in technology. But it's also tiny compared to the guitar market as a whole, and I do think there are some (objective) numbers that back up producer-specific and keyboardist markets being more susceptible to new tech purchases. Whether that's a good or wise thing is a *whole* different can of worms. There's a reason this site isn't called "Creating Digital Music Makes Your Life So Much Easier and Fuller." ;)

    Now, someone has claimed keyboardists don't get laid? Are we going to take that cowering behind a big rack of keyboards, saying nothing and running offstage while the guitarist gets all the girls?

    Oh… guess we are. Come on, someone ought to have a rude guitarist joke. Maybe a drummer? (Wait … now I can only think of drummer jokes.)

  • BPT

    Doesn't the Line 6 Variax do a lot of this "in-guitar", as well? I seem to recall it can simulate alternate tunings and banjo and sitar sounds and so forth. . .

  • Peter Kirn

    @BPT: I thought the Variax required either software or – with lesser capabilities – external DSP on the Line 6 POD, etc.

    But maybe we're getting overly hung up on the "in-guitar" feature; the major question with this stuff is always how good the tracking is. That's been where Roland has made strides, and people have been happier as a result. But it's also where I hear most complaints – speed, accuracy, expressiveness, etc.

  • Jeffrey

    Another computer program to take the soul out of music.

  • http://www.jhhl.net/iPhone jhhl

    in re: "in guitar": it's not like you're going to go out on the street with this and a pignose, is it?

    I see the big advantage over a straight MIDI guitar is that it's faster than MIDI at getting the signals to the processor. It can also get more parameters out of that signal than MIDI normally describes (since MIDI is heavily key event oriented). Nice to get this processing on a reed instrument that I wouldn't have to tune. 

  • Ejoe

    The new James Tyler Variax is way above the original versions; Better construction (minor bugs being ironed out on this first batch), better tracking, same models but better sounding through powerful processor, alternate tunings and vrtula capo onthe fly with dedicated button, and there`s even a super boutique luthier US version.

  • http://noisepages.com/members/afrodjmac/ AfroDjMac

    I grew up a guitarist, and I humbly admit that I had my moments when the purist in me felt the need to resist evolutions in technology.  (Even simply punching in on a take, at one point, felt wrong). But as I have matured as a songwriter and expanded to other instruments, these things seem less important to me.  I regard the instruments, software, hardware, or whatever as a tool to get a job done.  In my case, being a guy that wasn't born a virtuoso and  had not the patience nor discipline to work at becoming one, the job is capturing a musical idea or feeling.  I understand a person, whose goal is to showcase incredible talent, not appreciating this development.  I guess it just depends on what one is trying to accomplish.  Presenting yourself as a virtuosic guitarist but using Auto-tune, is like pressing play on your Soundcloud account 200 times a day on five different computers and claiming that your band is getting huge.

    In the past few years, I have even found peace with Auto-tune (musical sin!). In all honesty, sometimes I like the robotic sound it creates by obliterating the subtleties and imperfections of the human voice.  Cite: Kanye West's "808s and Heartbreaks"   (PS one of my favorite vocalist is Neil Young!  But don't Auto-tune your voice Neil!)  My point is similar to Peter's I suppose, it's not the software it's the use; what are you trying to achieve?  

    A parting thought: when the electric guitar was first invented, it was to solve the problem of volume (according to my studies).  Many complained that the sound wasn't pure or true to the acoustic, and they were right.  In the end though, it turned out to be a new  instrument, with it's own set of applications, strengths, and weaknesses.  

    So, I embrace Auto-tune for guitar, just as I do any new development.  It may offer a whole new palette to create sounds from.  If we want to hear an amazing guitarist for the sake of his/her technical prowess, I think we will know who is faking it and who the real deal is.  

  • Brian Tuley

    Just another effect treatment.  To be used if desired, but hopefully not a staple of guitar solos on every pop record to hit the shelves in the years to come.  

    I don't listen to noticeably pitch corrected material, so I don't care if pop producers want to use this parlor trick or not.  I mean the drums are quantized, the vocals are pitch corrected to the extent they sound like Zapp's Roger, so why not roach the humanity out of the Guitar track also?

    As for a techno electronic trick for digital tracks, I'm all for it.  Whatever suits your fancy.  There's electronic music and there's lighting in a bottle.  You can certainly let the lighting out of the bottle by tightening up the mix too much…. …. ….

  • Peter Kirn

    Right, and in fairness, this fundamental tech has been around for 15 years – and it didn't in any instance I heard ruin guitars. I think it's different from AutoTune on vocals, which in the way that it's applied – again this is the fault of the producer and/or vocalist – has done some really damage to the timbre and expression of the voice. I think that's why it bothers us so much, and, conversely, if applied as a special effect consciously doesn't. It's the vocal uncanny valley. I don't see that being a huge and imminent threat to guitars. And even vocalists can opt out.

    "Use AutoTune responsibly." Anyone want to start a PSA? ;)

  • Jerzy

    Darren Halm! please please PLEASE teach me how to turn buttons.

  • Peter Kirn

    Actually, I love encoders with added pushbutton capabili— 

    What was that again about not getting laid someone said earlier? ;)

  • yur2die4

    Variax has its features built in, it either requires batteries, power via the network cable, or power through the instrument cable. It can be reprogrammed from the computer using a Pod. Unfortunately, its retuning can sound a bit like a granular mess. Also, the tuning is relative to that of the strings. (it is fun to randomize program changes in ableton live clips, sent into the variax while playing it :P )

    This auto-tune technology really does look like a big step forward :)

  • http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu Adrian Freed

    Thanks Peter for the mention of our work at CNMAT, UC Berkeley.

    Our interactions with Gibson are ongoing and we continue to appreciate their commitment to innovation.

    I am regularly confused by the lens used to talk about our research work, i.e.,   "Where is the product? Where are the adopters?" Good research rarely results in particular products although products are sometimes good demonstration vehicles for new ideas. Our work (as with much of UC Berkeley's research) is more likely to sneak up on you over decades as an enabling part of the infrastructure, e.g. the first audio plugin, OSC (used in TUIO),

    pressure-sensing  multitouch (next gen. Kindle?),  Ethernet EVB, RISC (in ARM), BSD UNIX (part of OS/X), RAID etc. Watch out for how our work at the PARLAB will enable multicore efficiency for audio and music applications. There are lots of acronyms becoming part of mainstream tools already in that project….

  • gonna live forever

    Posted this elsewhere a couple weeks ago when several people started bemoaning Auto-Tune for guitars before any audio of it even existed:

    I've been using Auto-Tune to process guitars, basses, synths and mandolins for years. There's no law against it ;)

    Auto-Tune is incredibly useful, and the "signature sound" of Auto-Tuned vocals (which I *DO* find pretty annoying, actually) only scratches the surface of what you can accomplish with it- something which is true of every effect ever created.

    The "intended purpose rule" only applies to effects if your intention from the outset is to create music inside a specific genre. Consider:

    If music is to the act of manifesting musical creativity as free speech is to language (or vice versa, arguably) then genre is the Dewey decimal system, and all genre conventions such as auto-tuned rap vocals, distorted rock guitars, compressed drum n bass loops are Dewey classes. An author who writes books based on where a classification system will place them on a shelf is no author I'd care to read. More businessperson than artist, if you stop to think about it.

    Sorry if that seems abstract or cynically/naively post-structuralist, but genre itself is an abstract idea applied to music after the fact. Thinking about genre while creating music is like thinking about conception while having casual sex; eventually you're going to go soft.

    Adoption of popular culture into one's own private idiom is opt-in or liberty is a joke. Every one of you are free to use any effect in any way you choose. As a musician, I don't care about the mediocrity of other music, or the lack of intellectual curiosity which leads to the presets of certain effects becoming predominantly overused in popular music.

    I look forward to using ATG-6 in combination with other amazing technologies to accomplish otherwise physically impossible levels of expression with my stringed instruments.

  • Dumeril Seven

    Darren, I think you're over-sensitive. I'm not hating on guitarists because i am a guitarist! I'm just calling it the way I see it. Most guitarists I know are very conservative; they don't like or trust technology. They feel that Leo got it right the first time, which !@# with it. Not all guitarists, but most. A lot of the other comments on this post support my theory. Most importantly, I'm not saying that this viewpoint is wrong; I'm merely saying that it exists and is dominant.

  • Dumeril Seven

    … and yes, that is subjective. Which is exactly why I called it a prediction. I haven't actually done a statistically valid survey on the matter and I may very well be wrong about it. If two years from now AutoTune for Guitar is flying off the shelves, then you can say I told you so. But, I doubt that'll be happening.

  • labopais

    As a guitarist, for me the issue is not embracing technology or not – I use technology throughout the sound chain.  The issue is creating and using a unique tone that belongs to the guitarist. That tone is identifiable and recognizable.  From that tone different variants are made for individual songs.  I don't need to have access to thousands of possibilities.  I just need one. So why bother… 

  • Blob

    As a part-time guitarist / bassist myself, I can confirm string players' conservatism – it has to do with the unique qualities of acoustic tools that can never be reproduced by tech. In any case, I also agree that auto-tuning for guitar does not necessarily have to lead to the travesty that vocal auto-tuning has become. Having seen people use products like Line 6 guitars with in-built FX and harmonizers that allow you to instantly change tuning, I can see how this can become a revolutionary tool. I know I could have used some of that when I was playing weird downtuned songs in a metal band a few years back!

    The problem is any technology can be misused. I can also see how a lot of incompetent musicians will jump to the chance to be instantly able to do tapping and bending without their usual 75% bum notes. Hence Peter's bet that people will oppose use of this new tool. I myself have my reservations, but I can also see its practical potential, particularly for harmonizaing and alternative tuning purposes. Also, most guitarists in the pop/rock/indie/metal circuit process their sound with distortion and FX anyway, so I can see how auto-tuning would not be a great deviation from what we know as a "guitar" sound.

  • Peter Kirn

    I didn't say it was my bet, just that it was a safe bet. I usually predict all kinds of insanity, then at least some of it happens, and I'm pleased. ;)

  • Peter Kirn

    Adrian Freed corrects me on the Gibson issue. I'm sorry I can't find the print reference from the Wired article, but they declared the project dead. I agree about the value of pure research – and there's no question a whole lot of the work at CNMAT continues to be very relevant. I hope we'll look more at what fruit has been borne of the Gibson collaboration, even if the product Gibson promised didn't necessarily materialize as it might have.

  • http://www.nextstepaudio.com Brian Trifon

    This looks very impressive! Intonation is always a problem on guitars.

    re: variax

    Variax is actually quite incredible. The guitar modeling and string re-tuning sounds pretty good. It doesn't require external dsp or software (other than to edit the guitar models and custom tuning assignments.)

    wow! excited to see how this unfolds!

  • http://argotecmusic.com Defpotec

    As an electronic musician and a guitarist of 21 years, I'm pretty excited about this. I do agree that there seems to be a resistance to technology with many guitarists, often favoring simple things like stomp boxes over stuff like rack gear or even running a laptop for FXs. I think most need to see and hear it in use to change their minds. I have replaced a high end half stack (Mesa Boogie) with a laptop running Ableton and N.I.'s Guitar Rig. When I play live other guitarists are often surprised by how good that set up can sound. New tech can breathe new life into your music or leave it lifeless.  Like any tool it's how you use it. 

  • http://www.redstatesoundsystem.com Joshua Ellis

    I think Auto-Tune for guitar will probably end up being a great equalizer the way Auto-Tune for vocalists did…i.e. it'll allow any half-wit with minimal imagination or talent to make half-decent music. (Keyword being "half".) People with actual talent will find intriguing uses for it…and then, a few years in, it'll be passé and everybody will sell their Auto-Tune guitars on eBay, and then ten years later kids will start paying outrageous amounts of money to get the "vintage Auto-Tune" sound for another ten years, and nerds like us will spend thousands of hours trying to simulate the "vintage Auto-Tune" sound as a software plugin.

    And whoever is the new Brian Eno twenty years on will discourse at great length about how remarkable Auto-Tune for guitar is, and how it's all he/she used to do all the tinkly sine wave noodling on Justin Bieber's eighth album — y'know, the really *artsy* one.

    Round and round she goes.

    (I'm not cynical about music tech. No. Why do you ask?)

  • http://www.redstatesoundsystem.com Joshua Ellis

    Also: the reason keyboardists need guitarists in the band is so they have someone to weed out all the really rough, skanky groupies so they can talk to the smart girls.

    Since you were asking for keyboardist jokes. Peter. 

    Though that's not actually a joke, really.

  • Where is my comment?

    As a trained guitarist I find instant tuning change appealing, let's see how pricey it will be, and if they make a left handed version too.

    Also, I can predict Antares will sell (if priced right) a lot of units for a while…

    To hordes of button pushers wanting to get some of the "get laid" action only to realize a little bit later that they need to actually learn to play the guitar anyways, then eBay will be flooded hehee.

  • Peter Kirn

    Some of us do it for the music, man.

  • http://www.hapiskratch.com flattoe

    The real auto tune technology for guitar was developed decades ago by Transperformance, now Axcent Tuning – http://axcenttuning.com/Media/http://axcenttuning.com/

  • http://noisepages.com/members/driftpattern/ driftpattern

    @Jeff Brown all that you wish is already possible, and has been possible for many years. as the name implies, hexaphonic pickups are actually 6 pickups (1 per string) that just output sound, not midi. it is possible to hack the 13-pin cable to get access to each string. several companies make breakout boxes. or get graphtech piezo saddles. run each string into a audio interface and process each as you wish, or get 6 whammy pedals. the roland devices don't track poly sources; they track 6 mono sources. one example:
    http://www.rmcpickup.com/fanoutbox.html

  • http://noisepages.com/members/driftpattern/ driftpattern

    oh yeah and don't forget about moldover:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTf76CE7hmw#t=01m4

  • Jamsire Ernoir

    As a guitarist – I hate it. Take lessons, learn how to use use you ear, work, save money, buy a good instrument. I really hate this stuff. Purist? Fine. Proud of my naturally developed talent. Thank you.

  • Peter Kirn

    Right, but I think the whole point here for many people is the chance to make the guitar do something *different* with all that stored talent and skill.

    Haven't written it up yet, but today also marked the arrival of new Ztars from Starr Labs. Recall that once you can accurately track pitch, you can modify what the person is playing. Here it is with NI's Prism synth:
    http://starrlabs.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-ztar-c

    Curious what folks think of this as it relates to the other ideas and offerings here.

    Answering Jamsire's comment, though — yeah, if you use this to just correct your intonation, sure. If you allow it to expand your musical range, I can't imagine that as a bad thing. You might keep a traditional guitar and one of these and play them both, for instance, just like playing a bassoon and a contra.

    And on some level, I think the same can be said of augmenting your vocal abilities with Antares' stuff. You ought to be able to generate automatic harmonies, then sing with an ensemble, or sing unaltered and then sing with one of these as a special effect, respecting them as different things.

  • vanceg

    Im excited to see this new offering in the world of hexaphonic guitar processing. There have been several devices which allow guitarists to do pitch-shifting on a per-string basis for quite a few years now. The first really mainstream one being Roland's VG-8 which was introduced over a decade ago.

    I don't find this technology "cheating" in the slightest. No more than converting string vibration to electronic signal and then amplifying that signal and playing the result through a speaker. Surely no more than turning on a delay or chorus pedal.

    This is a creative tool. Full stop.

    Interested in checking out what a few forward thinking guitar players are discussing in the field of hex processing and other "out there" guitar tech? Check out http://www.futureguitarnow.com
    Hop on over to http://www.futureguitarnow.com and

  • nicholaus rowe

    as a guitarist, i did at first and still do have reservations of the tuning correction smoothing things out to sterility similar to the vocal product. it's nice to hear off notes sometimes. the guitar is like oil paint, not ms paint. very expressive. 

    that being said, the turning point that made my eyes open wide was the second he started playing bass through it. 

    on one hand guitarists don't like technology bc until now most of the technology sucks. nobody wants midi guitar. it lags. it's not as expressive either. 

    but this can be an investment. to go to different tunings at the press of a button is VERY attractive. if one wants to play slide blues in an open tuning, or 12-string… and this modeling isn't at all like the triggered midi offerings from roland in the past (not hating on roland or their good efforts and investment and risk-taking. i applaud that.) 

    also intonation correction i consider 'acceptable cheating' and a good convenience. also think about guitars with floyd rose vibrato systems, and think about changing tunings, to open tunings & back as mentioned above. how one string goes sharp & the rest go flat a bit etc. 

    but to be able to actually lay down a bass line with a normal guitar, or go from a strat to les paul sound, etc.. is very attractive. 

    i'm sure it will be implemented if it isn't already, but a way to model those sounds, such as the bass sound, WITHOUT doing any pitch correction, would be amazing & still preserve the tactile nuances that makes an organic instrument so beautiful. how can one argue with that?

    also it's unfair to say guitarists are stuck in eisenhower ages in terms of technology. synth lovers love analog. some things are timeless & good. an analog pedal will always sound better than a digital one. 

    on the other hand there are ways around (or should i say beyond) this if done intelligently. 

    it appears as though antares are on the right track. they are making the guitar more fun to play, not less. they are making it more expressive. or less. depending on how you use it. as i said one can almost change instruments whilst not relying on the pitch correction. this is a good thing. there is definitely value here. 

    guitarists are humans like keyboardists. i play both. many do. it's not about being a luddite, but about the right compromises being made minimally for a greater good. so far there haven't been many feasible attractive offerings that make enough sense. this and a few others i can think of are very welcome. it's a very interesting time in music technology right now. 

    i do hope that eventually one will be able to choose different guitar body styles. #1 request for me would be a gretsch hollowbody.  

  • Peter Kirn

    @Nicholaus Rowe: I certainly wasn't implying guitarists are anti-technology, only that they might be a little slower than their all-electronic counterparts to jump on a new guitar tech before it was clear why they should, requiring they get a brand-new axe at a higher price, no less! (And … that's not really irrational; I'd be just as wary if I played the guitar.)

    Excellent comments; I think you sum up the appeal. And obviously, we have lots of very tech-savvy guitarists. 

    Actually, I think the only thing about which I may misspoken is implying Gibson isn't continuing to pursue some of this, because of the way that effort was characterized in Wired. Adrian would know best since he's actually working on it!

    And I also don't want to downplay the many things that can be done with other current solutions, not just the Antares – though what they're doing looks genuinely very exciting. Some of the basic notions here – changing mode, for instance, or tracking to a synth – are already realities now, and cool ones, at that.

    That was always why I think keyboardists admired this technology. It allows people who really are excellent guitarists (including those who play both) to really wail away on soft synths and such, or do crazy things with intonation and expression. It allows a different physical approach and thus different results.

  • nicholaus rowe

    oh no peter my clarifications or defense of guitarists in regard to technology was actually in response to other posts, not yours. :)

    and as i said before, i applaud anybody who is taking the risks involved in trying to move forward & actually innovate, be it gibson, roland, anybody really down to the hobbyist cooking up something in his garage. 

    but for me personally this is something that i am actually interested in and see great potential for. this concept is something i could actually use & feel very good about in regards to features listed above. purely my opinions & preference, however for good reasons, as the above should reasonably indicate. :)  

    i hope they make the best of it. :)

  • ideletemyself

    "Some of us do it for the music, man." – thx for finally just saying that. :)

    And anyways I challenge anyone to go to a rave or club and watch some of these button smashing, knob-twiddling folks make the crowd go nuts and still believe they couldn't get laid if they wanted… Just sayin' ;)

  • leakeg

    Changing the tuning of the guitar in this way seems foolish to me. If I drop my guitar tuning by 2 steps, sure what I hear is 2 steps down, but my guitar is still going to be resonating and vibrating my body at it's regular frequencies – surely this is going to effect the feel of the instrument drastically and hence your playing too!

    And apart from the changing in tuning what else does this offer? Sound modelling? Realistically, with even a semi decent guitar I can get all the sounds I'd even need using an amp sim such as guitar rig, why bother with this?

    That said, if this same technology could be used to make sounds OTHER than guitar tones (i.e. as a midi controller) – that would be awesome.

  • kobe

    ideletemyself is correct. it's way easier to get laid being a dj than a guitarist. and do much less work with much less talent. but this is about music not silly bimbos & the funny things that get them excited. 

  • kobe

    leakeg you are being so meticulous about the vibrations of the guitar itself yet you think guitar rig comes even close to what this thing does? really??? try making that bass sound with guitar rig. :-p

    -though guitar rig totally rocks for what it is. but… noooo waaaay can you do anything close to this with guitar rig. you can model amps but you can't model guitar bodies & pickups. or different strings or even basses. 

    or hell try & sound like a hollowbody gretsch with a strat. :-p rickenbacher 12-string? 

    with your amp up nice, you'll feel more of those vibrations than the ones of your guitar.. 

    and midi rigs have been around for almost 2 decades. they lag. they're not as expressive at all. what technology are you talking about? hex pickups? 2 decades ago. 

    the modeling with this thing beats anything out today. a guitarist can have one guitar to take to gigs or have in his room instead of a guitar, a bass, a rick 12-string, etc. 

  • ex-fanboy

    From a technology/programming stand-point it's intriquing. It also seems like it could be a competitive product for our friend chris adams' robot guitar here in hamburg (germany); now gibson licensed. although i can't seeing autotune being used for rock et al, i'm sure it will find it's way into the electronic dance scene. seems like it would fit in well there… especially since electronic dance live acts are using devices that stay in tune for the most part – ie samples or synths; in this case autotune guitar would have a distinct advantage. i've had 2 guitars go out of tune within a one hour set due to the extreme temperature fluctuations arrising from the crowd and air filtering systems.

  • ex-fanboy

    one more thing and it relates in general to the comments on cdm but also the ones for this article: how can anyone on this site bemoan "button-pushing"? the subject matter here is about creating digital music, which bý it's very nature involves pushing buttons; be it a controller, computer keyboard or even synth "keys". it's like complaining that guitar players are just pressing strings. jeez!

  • http://www.channelrobot.com Lindon

    OK, so I'm a guitarist and a VG-88 owner. Just doing my bit to be  technologist and guitarist here.

    Some observations from the video and my experiences of over 10 yrs with the roland product.:

    Intonation correction is the most "useful" bit here I think – and completely missing from the VG series of

    devices.The "bend" feature looks nice too. I can bend to my hearts content(if you'll excuse the

     expression) on my current rig, but help is always nice. Other than that I was mightily UN-impressed by

    what I heard. I get A LOT wider, and to my ear more realistic range of guitars, as well as a wide

    range of amps and cabs AND some pretty out there effects too..mandolin? no problem, Banjo?

    comes as a preset, Rick 360-12? Thru a Vox-AC30 or something else perhaps…? Retuning on the

    fly? Sure just dial it into a slot and away you go….(Drop-D, open G, DADGAD, FFCCAAB if you want)

    Sure mines a "big clunky box" on the floor…but I couldnt help but notice that to make the antares

    device "playable' required a fair range of similar sized stuff on the floor too..Sure mines using a std-HEX

    pickup, but so is theres…… hmm as I say Im not holding my breath for this….and it'll need to be price

    competitive wiht the VG-series for sure, as well as offer a fair chunk more than it does right now.

     

  • vinayk

    I will have to work on my guitar chops again.

    That way when this thing hits big – I can say – "in my day we didn't need all this fancy tech to be good guitar players…."

    It is quite cool that this guitar can process the tone FAST. That for me is the drawback of rolands solution (at least for midi) – but no midi here as far as I can see. Moog's guitar is quite nice looking, but again it doesnt seem to do anything "that" fantastic.

    I think thats the reason that guitarists don't embrace tech so much… nothing yet has really challenged the status quo (like say the first electrics did to an acoustic). I use amp sims all the time for convinience like peter said, and I have a whole synth rig. But my guitar just still seems to sound nice with it plugged into a nice tube amp (or even a tube amp sim) maybe some effects… its simple, and the lack of fiddling ability means more playing!

  • Adam

    The technology for "Autotuning" guitar is already here… I'm surprised no one has mentioned Celemony's Melodyne. The latest version allows you to adjust the pitch of the individual notes within a chord (of real recorded audio):&nbsp ;http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=dna

  • Mr Lemonhog

    Not sure why some folks are upset by new technology, even the "horrors" of autotune. One may always just avoid using any new technology and make music with analog, acoustic instruments, even rocks and sticks. It's a safe bet that people will still want to hear rockabilly guitar bands with fuzzboxes after we colonize Mars.

  • 15 cats

    @kobe;

    The deal with the vibrations in the guitar is that you feel them through your fingers, whatever the volume of your amp – so if you're playing an F and feeling an F, but an E is coming out your amp, it will just confuse you. Feel is a very large part of playing a guitar, which is especially true with Open Tunings – they way the guitar feels thgouh your hand really affects the way you play it, and you'll miss that if you use Auto-Tune in this way.

    This is before we get to the issue of using this without headphones or a big amp. You can hear the strings, acoustically, while you're playing, even on a solid-body electric guitar. This will make the disconnect even greater – you're playing an F, feeling an F, and even hearing the F direct from your guitar – but an E is coming from your amp!

  • Spazmatron

    I think some of you are missing the bigger picture here:

    What is the best musical avenue to getting laid?  Come on guys, focus. 

  • db3ll

    Guitarists are Luddites to the point where it has completely stunted the growth of the guitar; any product that seeks to EXPAND, not REPLACE the vocabulary of the "original" instrument is met with hostility. The first comment sums it up very, very well… guitarists are basically stuck in the 1950s, Eisenhower tech complete with McCarthyesque fear of the instrument's evolution.

    I love hearing the "it's all about ORIGINAL TONE, man", argument, which usually ends up contradicting itself; on the one hand, guitarists insist that tone comes from their fingers, the vibrating string, his or her technique and style- it's so deeply unique and personal!  Players of other instruments don't get it!  But apparently all that personality & magic can be cancelled out by a small amount of pitch shifting- I guess it's not that unique after all.  However, feel free to express your unique tone via the tube amp and vintage guitar dogma that's so ubiquitous it's practically a law . You're allowed to be unique as a guitarist, AS LONG AS YOU'RE USING THE SAME GEAR AS YOUR GUITAR HEROES.  That's conducive to :"personal" tone, right?  But this somehow isn't, even though NO ONE has explored the tonal possibilities of Autotune Guitar or heard it directly through a good amp.

    Maybe that's why guitar based modern pop music is doing absolutely nothing new; maybe you should all go get lutes.  Oh, and by the way, I'm a guitarist of 25 years, I have had enough gear to understand the subtleties of different amps/guitars, and I fully feel that it's the attitude of the guitarists expressed on this site that make visits to the guitar store simply an exercise in seeing how many different ways companies can come up with the same damn thing.  In closing, if you need me, I'll be in the keys/pro audio department.  Keyboardists have the coolest toys, and I can't hear you butchering "Purple Haze" over here.

  • vinayk

    @db3ll

    what technology has come along to expand the guitar thus far? midi? sustainers? variations like tapping instruments? harp guitars?

    i dont see a great deal that has challenged the electric or acoustic guitar?

  • db3ll

    @ vinayk

    Stepped fret instruments (bond, others); carbon fiber instruments (numerous); aluminum/metal bodied guitars (specimen, trussart, et al); ceramic bodied guitars, and yes, any MIDI guitar synth (Stepp, Synthaxe, which failed because they required you to become a student of them; your sloppy technique can't hide); any guitar with complex electronics (the Gibson RD series, the new Robot stuff); anything more "cutting edge" than a trem or simple active electronics and most guitarists flee.  The sad thing is that, for instance, the Bond guitar (which I have owned) played great and sounded great; you'd never have to replace the frets, and the electronics were sophisticated… but it wasn't a traditional guitar, so it and the others failed and we're stuck with modified gibson/fender style instruments. If you want something more adventurous, it's either expensive and unavailable if vintage (Wandre), or, due to guitarist's "tastes", expensive & boutique (Teuffel Birdfish, the Spalt stuff).

    I always come back to the Minimoog; it wasn't an acoustic instrument, you couldn't do many of the same things on it that you could on a piano  (monophonic!) but keyboardists embraced it and it spawned A WHOLE NEW MUSICAL GENRE.  If it had been a guitar, it would have been a failure.

    And the harp guitar is one of the saddest failures of all, since you mention it.  I have a 1917 Dyer style 7, and the extra effort spent learning how to play it makes in an environment, not a guitar.  All new guitars could be "environments" like that if guitar players were as receptive to change as they are to marketing/vintage hype.

  • kobe

    @ db3II: vinayk hits it on the head here:

    "I think thats the reason that guitarists don’t embrace tech so much… nothing yet has really challenged the status quo (like say the first electrics did to an acoustic)."

    guitarists aren't luddites. there just hasn't been anything worthwhile to use yet. bottom line. 

    there are many people who play both. even some keyboard gearheads who then pick up guitar. there isn't some luddite gene that makes certain people be guitarists.. it is just lack of good options. if you ever decide to learn how to play guitar some day i guarantee you'll understand. 

  • kobe

    @db3II: -of all the bullshit they've tried to come out with to make the guitar more technologically advanced & versatile, this one actually shows real promise without having to compromise the important things that make a guitar what it is.

  • nathan

    guitard here. and i want it.  maybe guitarist that are stuck playing classic rock wont get along with this but people that are searching for new sounds will love it.

  • db3ll

    @Kobe:

    I think I've mentioned that I've played guitar for about 25 years.  I'm not very good, but I know how to play and I do love the instrument.  I don't think the problem is that new tech doesn't have promise, it's that guitarists are too blinded by tradition to SEE any promise, which prohibits new technologies from making it past the first generation.  There will be no Stepp guitar 2.  There will be no Synthaxe 2; I'll be amazed if guitars like "the handle" or the (still conservative) Moog guitar make it at all  All you have to do is read the comments in this thread regarding a really pretty conservative tuning effect, and you can see why there's dozens (if not hundreds) of companies making copies of the tube screamer instead of anything fun.

    As a guitarist, I care because I feel the guitar is obsoleting itself, not because I hate the guitar.  

  • nicholaus rowe

    regarding string vibration in relation to notes played, when i think about it it seems that that is just something that will feel different at first, that one could get used to, depending on habits. in my opinion a very small price to pay. i'm hardly conscious of note vibrations when i play. i'm paying more attention to how it sounds. 

    @nathan: i could see people who play classic rock loving it. wanna play all the guitar parts (including bass) of stairway to heaven on the same guitar? you know someone's going to want to play bohemian rhapsody on brian may's guitar. 

    @db3II: part of what most people who own guitars purchase is based upon what's available. and affordable. hence all the TS9s. people in general have a bad habit also of starting out small & spending money on cr@p for lack of a better word, and later either can't afford to or feel stupid paying for something twice. 

    one can also say the same about synth players who buy virtual instruments of classic synths. how many 808/909-based sound collections are there? how many companies are going to keep emulating the hammond B3? 

    from a business standpoint, i don't mind those people & those companies because if that's how those companies make their money to take fund the risks involved in investing into the more higher R&D-requiring stuff, it's only going to help make those things more available and affordable for those who will be using it. 

    in all honesty you may be right about your predictions about what may not see a second incarnation. i might agree with you as well. but your predictions might say more about how good or bad of ideas those were than about the worldwide population of those whose only known commonality was owning a guitar.  those things were also pretty expensive for what the customer ended up with. all it takes is a good idea that's worth buying & using & i think this is one. obviously hearing in person will be believing. but this seems like proof of concept at least. in my opinion this is as close as it's gotten, to what it is you may actually be hoping for as far as bringing the guitar somewhere new & good as an instrument. the real evolved species that actually survives. 

    regarding the concept of obsolescence in general, on the other end of the technological spectrum, you know cellos & violins haven't changed much technologically in the past 400 years. in fact, i hear the older ones are better. ;)  

    classical guitarist? fill a concert hall & they don't even use a mic. so yes that is the tradition you speak of, but tradition itself prevents the obsolescence itself. as do good new ideas.

    what's good, is timeless.

  • nicholaus rowe

    @15cats:

    think about what you said a second… 'you're playing F, but then E comes out of your amp.' you basically described what many people already do when they tune down a half a step. the real fun begins when you go from the tuning you're used to to one whose differences per each string are not equal steps. :) but as i've said before, something to get used to, nothing more. /2¢

  • chris

    this is great if it really sounds good, very hard to tell from the youtube video

    the intonation correction especially is a great thing

    changing tunings on the fly and realtime pitch shifting also very cool, what i like about this is that it alows guitar players to evolve beyond the physical limits of the guitar and create new guitar music … being able to change tunings for a bridge, break etc within a song or even a riff is something even the best players on this planet just cannot do, and even if you can do it on a Gibson robo but if you heavily use this feature your strings are going to wear out pretty quickly …

    however this all falls to pieces if it sounds like the Variax modelling or DAW/plugin pitch correction … but the guitarist in me hopes this becomes available soon, won't sound like the vocal autotune and will be much cheaper than the gibson robo stuff :)

  • shim

    what joshua ellis said.

    …and to my non-engineer brain i believe that the nuances of all those resonances of different tunings on wood, string gauges etc will certainly be fudged/lost with this thingy.

    the intonation issue can easily be solved by one of those $30 "earvana" compensated nuts. that sh*t is fo' realz.

    modelling anything is still faking the funk.

  • Blob

    I have a gut feeling (not based on actual data, mind you) that out of all the electronic musicians that also play conventional instruments (for lack of a better word), about a third of them must be guitarists (with half being keyboard players and the playing other stuff).

    Having realized that, I find it interesting that, despite using computers and associated music technology for most of my musical endeavours, and being (I hope) open-minded towards new technological developments, when it comes to the guitar, it feels like "holy ground" for me. Any technological change that affects this "traditional" instrument is immediately met with suspicion – I know I raise my eyebrows everytime I re-read this article.

    Therefore, it's good to see that people in this forum are trying to put preconceptions aside and actually analyzing what sort of good stuff (and bad suff as well) can come out of Antares' solution.

    In short, great thread – do carry on!

  • Blob

    CORRECTION (1st paragraph):

    *(plus half being keyboard players and the rest of the guys playing other "stuff").

  • Blob

    @nicholaus rowe

    "it’s nice to hear off notes sometimes. the guitar is like oil paint, not ms paint. very expressive. "

    That sentence sums up a lot about the tech versus traditional divide. You can do great stuff with MS Paint or Adobe software, but it will never be like a painting or analogue photograph. In any case, i feel these tools don't replace those art forms, they rather add another dimension to visual expression. The same can be said about guitars augmented with digital processing and auto-tuning or any sort of digital or digitally enhanced musical instrument.

    @db3ll

    "I love hearing the “it’s all about ORIGINAL TONE, man”, argument, which usually ends up contradicting itself; on the one hand, guitarists insist that tone comes from their fingers, the vibrating string, his or her technique and style- it’s so deeply unique and personal! Players of other instruments don’t get it! But apparently all that personality & magic can be cancelled out by a small amount of pitch shifting- I guess it’s not that unique after all. "

    Agreed. And like I mentioned before, most guitarists electronically process their sound anyway and have done so for decades. Jimi Hendrix's guitar playing in "Purple Haze" is awash with reverberation and filtering effects – and his personality as player came through with a bang, because of his physical musical skill AND his choice of sonic alterations. Effects are tools to augment your expression. What we know as "electric guitar" sound is already and electronically processed reality.

    In any case, we cannot disregard the fact that Antares' on the spot pitch shifting and harmonizing of notes can allow an incompetent guitarist to sound like an accurate, spot-on player with no fluffed or imprecise notes – in other words, cheating. I know some poeple will use it that way, and I find it awful.

    Maybe future albums shuld come with a sticker warning ("auto-tuned guitar and vocals" – a bit like the GMO warnings on food ;-) )

    I'm sure I will cry "foul" whenever that is detected (like I do when I hear the squeaky clean, fake and utterly monotonous android vocals that populate pop music releases these days)

    But I'm starting to think that the applications of auto-tuning a guitar are quite different (in scope and purpose) from those of vocal auto-tuning (which in my view has clearly been developed to hide imperfections and lack of talent).

    Plus, "hacking" the Antares tool's pitch alteration parameters can generate a whole new world of sound (for ex. extreme sensitivity to bending causing pitch to rise up to 3 octaves, creating an extreme "gliding" effect, or harmonizing each string to sound like 3 or 4 strings of different tuning – i don't know if this is possible but you get the idea).

    Or, you can just use it to keep your guitar in tune, or unplug it all and go acoustic at certain moments.

    Using and combining all these possibilities (and at the same time avoiding covering up your limitations with tech) – that is what defines your identity.

  • Dave

    It's a sophisticated re-pitch effect and a hex pickup. The most innovative label I can find for it is Variax mk2. Or Hexa-Whammy. It's a long overdue development considering those two fine predecessors and will change the guitar as much as regular autotune changed vocals: Not at all. It's just an effect.

  • Freddy

    @ Peter Kirn:

    "Some of us do it for the music, man."

    I know Peter ;) , I was trying to be ironic and found amusing the rockstar stereotypes being applied to the "button pushing" way of expression, and the nuances in this.

    In the end it all comes to how much juice you can squeeze from your tools and how this tools help to get your inspiration out.

    If you actually know how to play an instrument, more power to you.

    And anything that brings a new or different way of doing things should be always welcome as usually it opens new paths for creativity, no matter what you play.

  • http://noisepages.com/members/rcrath/ Rich Rath

    We guitarists tend to be sucker for hardware, whether its a box to stomp on or a new thousand dollar gizmo.  However, everything that this hardware mod does can already be done, in many cases better, via software for little or no $$.  Check the link in my username for lots of sound examples (tag=vst plugins) of doing exactly that.  I disagree that the string resonance/acoustic feature are just something you adjust to.  I've experimented quite a bit with electronically modified tunings and adjustments, and maybe I've been playing too long, but I can feel it when the note on my guitar is not what comes out the speakers.  Not always a bad thing, just it is a real thing that guitars make a physical connection with the player in a way that most digital controllers don't.  Also, I play at low volumes and you can just hear the strings playing the different note.  My dreams of instant slide guitar tunings did not work out.  Also, I bet you a dollar they recorded the bulk of the guitar signal direct to board so that the acoustic sound did not interfere with what they were playing.  I am all for electronically messing with guitars, but this is a boondoggle, geared toward us gutarists' tendency to fetishize hardware as somehow more real.  Do it in the computer — you already have processors there — let the guitar do what it is good at, which is getting expressive notes out of it into a signal processing chain.  

  • http://noisepages.com/members/rcrath/ Rich Rath

    Darren: excellent trolling.  Everyone: please don't feed the trolls too much…they get lazy then.

    Peter asks: Now, someone please tell a guitarist joke. This is starting to embarrass me, as a keyboardist. (Keyboardists have fewer jokes. I think we usually just *are* the butt of the jokes, personally.)

    Q:  How do you know when the stage is level at a concert?

    A: The guitarist is drooling out of both sides of his mouth.  

  • Blob

    @Rich Rath

    Also, in his first comment, Darren forgot the fact that being an expert guitarist requires playing 8-10 hours a day, everyday. In your bedroom. Without going out for sunlight or eating or talking to people. Ergo, nerdness. Ergo, many guitarists do not get laid ;-)

    In any case – surely there are electronic musician / sound designer jokes already?

  • Joshua Bogart

    autotune = lame

  • http://www.internetbootcamponline.com geoff

    cool. but auto tune won't exactly tune your guitar according to its total functionality. I been using using auto tuners, but still something doesn't seems right.

    ————–

    guys check this site out. learn guitar easily

  • sandy

    Great stuff! Ever wondered why singers are changing words like every, there, and air into errr? Pretty funny. Check this video out. http://youtu.be/-9MZfxHbKIE

  • http://locksmithinjacksonville.com/estimates/ Jacksonville Locksmi

    This is amazing, this has become a common problem. Tuning a guitar, i wonder where to buy this.