jazseven
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
|
Post by jazseven on Jul 21, 2013 16:25:52 GMT -5
Hi all I have a LR Baggs equipped Ibanez RG1820X but I rarely find myself using the piezo as the pickups, when played clean, have a much more organic sound. However I am a huge fan of synth sounds and have always considered getting a MIDI equipped guitar as my piano skills are.... erm... non existent. Now as far as I can see, from what I've read, MIDI pickups like the Roland GK-3 work on the same principles as a piezo does (I'm probably wrong  ). So my question is this Is there any way I can rewire the output of the piezo to a functioning 13 pin MIDI out? Alternatively are there such things as audio to MIDI converters? Or are my dreams just simply unattainable? I don't really want to fit an external MIDI pickup as honestly I find them quite ugly. I've had a look various places on the net but really can't seem to find anything on the subject of a conversion  Jaz |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 21, 2013 22:02:58 GMT -5
Hi jazseven- If they were attainable, they wouldn't be dreams, now, would they?  I'm no expert on MIDI stuff. I'm sure that others who are will weigh in on this. But, for my 2 cents, anyway . . . I don't know what the piezo element(s) on your Ibby are like. To get a 13-pin MIDI out, you'd need to have a hexaphonic pickup. In other words, not just one piezo element, but 6 individual ones, one per string. At least, that's how a Roland pickup does it. Even if this system does have individual elements, if they are all combined at the preamp, it may not be easy to rewire it to individual outputs without dismembering the thing in the process. Some photos of the Baggs system might help sort this out. As far as an audio to MIDI converter, such things do exist, but I'm not sure they exist so as to do a real-time conversion of your playing to MIDI data. They can convert an mp3 file into MIDI data so as to create a score, for example, but I don't know if any sort of real-time conversion is possible or practical. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 22, 2013 0:20:39 GMT -5
Mr. Seven, I'm no expert on MIDI stuff. Sadly, I am the MIDI expert in this here NutzHouse. Hmmmm.... how to explain what Roland (and Axon) are doing when one plays the guitar into a MIDI setup, that's the question. In brief, this process is called "pitch-to-MIDI" conversion, and all guitar/MIDI setups do this. Most often it's done off-board from the guitar, as the required processing power is no small potatoes. (CASIO being the notable exception with on-board conversion.) Looking around the web, I see that you actually have six individual piezo elements, one per saddle. That's a good start, but as newey says, hacking into the wires themselves may not be a walk in the park - only visual investigation will provide an answer on that score. If you can arrange for those wires to be available, then all you need are some buffers, and a set of pitch-to-MIDI converters - either scavenged from a commercial piece of gear, or homebrew, that'd be your call.  I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that L.R. Baggs already has a complete setup as you describe, sitting in a box on a shelf at your local retailer (or at various websites). That'd be the easy way to accomplish your goal, but it also wouldn't score very high on the Nutz scale, now would it?  HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Jul 22, 2013 6:22:37 GMT -5
....and /or Google the GraphTech Ghost system for more ideas.... ...not all installations have to include an "external" pickup, no matter whose system you wish to follow. At the risk of annoying sg, also have a look at the Vguitars Forum...lots of info there, including some Dude selling aftermarket 13-pin sockets for DIYers... Bottom line is though, you still need the 'synth' bit, whether it be hardware or software based.. HTH |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 6:26:46 GMT -5
....and /or Google the GraphTech Ghost system for more ideas.... yeah, going MIDI will happen to most of us eventually. Going digital in 99.99% of our lives and leaving guitar still analog-only won't last much longer. |
|
|
|
Post by haydukej on Jul 22, 2013 9:14:37 GMT -5
....and /or Google the GraphTech Ghost system for more ideas.... yeah, going MIDI will happen to most of us eventually. Going digital in 99.99% of our lives and leaving guitar still analog-only won't last much longer. I acknowledge your statement and reject it thoroughly. If that was the case, there would be no more tube-amps being marketed and acoustics would be rebilled as birdhouses. To quote the Reverend, ""When all is said and done, I go back to the house and plug into a 4x10 Bassman and just turn it up." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 9:29:39 GMT -5
yeah, going MIDI will happen to most of us eventually. Going digital in 99.99% of our lives and leaving guitar still analog-only won't last much longer. I acknowledge your statement and reject it thoroughly. If that was the case, there would be no more tube-amps being marketed and acoustics would be rebilled as birdhouses. To quote the Reverend, ""When all is said and done, I go back to the house and plug into a 4x10 Bassman and just turn it up." As much as the vinyl LP market lasted. Or the analog audio recording lasted. Or the analog video lasted. Just having an analog instrument and an analog amp when 90% of the rest of the chain are digital, does not make much difference. Eventually this 10% will go digital as well. Its a matter of architectural need than anything else, to go to the next stage. A necessary step in the general upgrade process. I am not advocating anything here. I just find it unlikely that the electric guitar as we know it will stay as such to eternity, when the potential by going digital gets much much bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by haydukej on Jul 22, 2013 11:13:04 GMT -5
I like the possibilities of MIDI myself, unfortunately it does not help me play any better and the cost of a system is a bit prohibitive for me at the moment. The future of guitars can be quite interesting as you speculate. I wonder if future nutz mods/desires will be to have a standard strat wiring as they strip out all of their factory MIDI systems, preamps, buffers, and modelers?
|
|
|
|
Post by b4nj0 on Jul 22, 2013 11:23:23 GMT -5
I reckon you stand more chance of bass players going over to MIDI 100%. Guitarists are so conservative. Also, take vintage guitars, valve amps, effects that eschew digital. Hey, even the Fender "Roadworn" series! (Distressing guitars in general actually) We could all see digital photography and video coming but I reckon (and hope because I'm a card carrying luddite too!) That guitars will stay much the way they are and will co-exist with MIDI and also whatever supplants MIDI in time. But this should be for another thread and the OP was about implimentation of MIDI rather than its prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 22, 2013 15:22:58 GMT -5
Well I kept to jazseven's query, but somehow this has gone a bit further than he intended, I'm sure. Nonetheless, we would all do well to remember that MIDI is a means of communication between instruments, and not a musical instrument itself. Since synthesizers were invented and intended to become musical instruments, originating tones discernable to the ear, then they qualify as devices for which MIDI is quite suitable. One should also remember that there were no MIDI-capable guitars of any kind for several years after MIDI came about, back in 1985. Yes there were already dedicated and proprietary guitar/synth units on the market, for several years in fact, but those fell before the onslaught of MIDI, once the analog-to-digital interface was developed to allow stringed instruments the same level of control as keyboards. In point of fact, the line of "digital" versus "analog" is, and always will be, a moving target. The definition of each changes over time, and that's by consensus - there are, and always will be, hold-outs (not necessarily Luddites, so put your card back in your wallet, b4nj0 ) who insist on differing definitions from that consensual norm. That's to be expected, and welcomed. That very lack of 100% cohesiveness is what drives innovation, and tends to bring overall improvement to the world of music, and to the musicians who make it. js, for more info, I second the sugguestion that you visit VGuitarForums, there are many remarkably capable and intelligent people residing thereon. Some of them are friendly too, as witness to them accepting gumbo into their midst. HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 22, 2013 15:47:21 GMT -5
I like the possibilities of MIDI myself, unfortunately it does not help me play any better... It may not make your fingers move any differently in terms of raw skill, but it will most definitely make your overall sound output more enjoyable, more fulfilling, and dare I say it, more acceptable to a greater number of listeners, both in person and via recordings. That's one definition of "a better player", to be sure. The tonal palette for a standard guitar (electric or acoustic) is far reaching, even given no outside help. But compared to what synths can do, it's woefully inadequate. Being able to tap into that kind of "sound library", if you will, lets you express yourself in so many more ways that you might never have imagined. Having that vast array of tonal options at your hand may even inspire you to, unexpectedly and unplanned, take your music in a different direction altogether. For one example, check out Craig Chaquico, formerly the leading light of Jefferson Starship, now a prominent player of jazz, blues, and even some "new-age" hippie stuff. Suffice it to say, MIDI-enhanced guitars and synths are no longer the "greasy kid stuff", they are now the Brylcreem of music. Expensive Brylcreem, to be sure. But this is not because manufacturers are greedy, it's because powerhouse guitar retail establishments refuse to hire "salesmen" that actually know, and give a flying hoot about, the whole concept of playing a guitar in ways that are advanced beyond the simple 12-bar, 3-chord Blues idiom. If your salespeople can't explain it and show it off to good advantage, then it ain't gonna sell, period. Hence, low sales requires higher prices in order to recoup investment dollars. Think of the "law of supply and demand", and it'll make sense. Hopefully not before I leave the building. BTW, outgrowth discussions like this are exactly what fuel The NutzHouse. I see no pressing need to move the "non-responsive" postings to a new thread, that might suddenly leave a gap in the discussion. 'Nuff said. HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by ux4484 on Jul 22, 2013 18:10:36 GMT -5
I've got a dark cloud over my head on this and ash's new band member I've been formulating a response to his, but this overlaps.
It is just STILL too complicated to do something that seems simple. We're still hindered by A/D signal processing and the overall speed of the interface. It takes so much work just to learn an instrument, and then we have this stuff too.
Back in '85 I saw a guy with a one man band setup called "Terry and the tape-ettes" he had two dual decks with fast search, and boxes of cassettes. His recorded backing tracks were quite good, and he knew them well. I talked to him after a show to ask him about his setup. He was convinced he would be able to go MIDI in just a few years. 5 years later he was still using tapes. I've seen guys guitar-oke, it's not far off from what he did then (though he recorded all his own backing tracks on a portastudio). Is there yet a solution as simple and elegant as his analog setup that is truely digital? Not just moved to a hard drive and controlled with an iPad, but True easy simple to use MIDI control of virtual instruments that could fool you if you closed your eyes? Egads! I don't know whether to hail or dread the day it happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Jul 23, 2013 6:05:27 GMT -5
...well, at least I didn't kill the thread, sg.... ..yet From my own experience, it really depends upon what one hopes to achieve with an instrument.. ..I know that I can't play piano, trumpet, woodwinds, etc., but I can make all of those sounds (and a lot more!) if I find I want to with my ageing Roland GR30 and a Roland-Ready Strat. There have been so many more recent iterations in gear and philosophies since my stuff was new, that it's enough to make my head spin at times..and certainly the enthusiasm with which some of this stuff is taken up by aspiring synth musicians is surprising... True, if one wants to always have the latest box of transistors in one's back pocket, it can cost you a good percentage of the National Debt but the interesting by-product of that scenario is that the earlier gear comes on the market (via FleaBay or whatever) at a fraction of its original price.. .. I reckon I can duplicate most of my setup for about 20% of what I originally paid if I shop carefully.. ...but then, for me that was the price of getting interested in all this stuff more than 15 years ago.. Where we all go with this (and how much time, energy and $$$ we are prepared to invest) in the future is really dependent upon the individual's musical directions. ....thankfully we are all different in this regard, otherwise there would only have ever been a couple of manufacturers of electric guitars in the first place...  I think (and hope!) that MIDI / synth guitar will happily continue to co-exist with its normally-aspirated cousins for a long time yet.. g-f-b in Winter Oz.. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 23, 2013 6:20:38 GMT -5
So, MIDI is like turbocharging?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 7:20:11 GMT -5
So, MIDI is like turbocharging? I'd say Carburator-equipped car's engine would be the traditional analog guitar, while modern ECU-equipped car's engine would be the Synthie-capable guitar. The equivalent of turbocharging could be applied to both guitars, and would be something like a signal booster or pre-amp. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 23, 2013 12:00:17 GMT -5
So, MIDI is like turbocharging? I'd make it more like MIDI is like a Saturn Rocket boosting out of Earth's gravity well, compared to a normal guitar's ability to run down the road at a hundred miles an hour. Sure, they're both going somewhere, and in a straight line, but man-o-schevitz - what a difference in the way they get there! </obligatory car analogy> But g-f-b is correct, I was remiss in not pointing out that the cost of getting into the MIDI world is not very expensive, if one is willing to: 1) read up first, on various forums (figure out if something should be avoided, or is good); 2) visit with folks who have this stuff already up and running (figure out approximately what something can actually do); 3) shop judiciously for used gear (using the info gathered from steps 1 and 2); 4) lather, rinse and repeat as needed. Said used gear maybe not being capable of all the bells and whistles of this year's latest and greatest, but then again, you shouldn't be running before you can walk, eh? HTH sumgai |
|
jazseven
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
|
Post by jazseven on Jul 23, 2013 17:41:35 GMT -5
....and /or Google the GraphTech Ghost system for more ideas.... ...not all installations have to include an "external" pickup, no matter whose system you wish to follow. At the risk of annoying sg, also have a look at the Vguitars Forum...lots of info there, including some Dude selling aftermarket 13-pin sockets for DIYers... Bottom line is though, you still need the 'synth' bit, whether it be hardware or software based.. HTH That looks like EXACTLY what I need, though I'll definitely do some more research on it and as for still needing the sounds etc. that isn't an issue as I have banks and banks of presets that I use for recording purposes, it's just the means of accessing them for live use that have been missing. And as for the going digital, I can definitely see things going that way personally, I mean look at line 6 and the axefx, sure they're not perfect YET but they're pretty darn close and I don't think it will be long before the difference in sound between one of those units and a tube amp will be almost impossible notice. My current rig incorporates a mixture of digital and analogue, I'm using a line 6 pod hd500 for all of my effects using the 4 cable method to route it through my tube amp. if i had the money for an axefx 2.... I'm genuinely not sure if i'd bother holding on to the tube amp. At the same time though I don't see things going 100% digital as these days mp3/m4a etc. are the leading ways of accessing music, yet there is still a large market in vinyl and an even bigger market in cds thanks for all the great input though guys, if you have any other ideas/suggestions then keep them coming as the more possibilities i have, the better Jaz |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Jul 23, 2013 22:23:52 GMT -5
Hmm...I'm not convinced myself on a numer of these premises...
I'd love a midi guitar for the purposes of transcription and if it is/were possible, a surround sound mix or live sound out of the instrument perhaps...but I've seen a lot of impressive live demos and such, but I not that no one seems to have done anything particularly noticable with the guitar synth...I can think of only a few possible songs...Trevor Rabin's solo in 'Owner Of A Lonely Heart' is typically cited but is apparently... "it sounds like a guitar synth but is just a regular electric guitar compresses very heavily, according to Trevor Rabin. Interesting sound nonetheless"...and Peter Frampton's solo in "Electric Dreams"...
Where is the creative use of the guitar synth in popular music, with all the development and such in technology and availability with thousands sold...
To me still, it so often comes across as a novelty. As for the Guitar as a controller, the keybourd would seem to be the more flexible and easier to utilize controller for midi by far...
MP3's are vastly inferior to the 'real thing' of digital WAV or analogue. The re-rise in vinyl is largely because the 'remastered CD's' have the dynamics compressed out of them for contemporary ears that 'like' the compressed sound of remastered CD's and MP3's and such, these technologies were largely to shrink the files and such of course, not to improve the sound in any way.
To temper my 'enthusiasim' re this kind of thing, I have to ask myself what I'd really use it for and while 'fun' and even dabbled a bit in the 80's myself, there is so much that a conventional guitar can do well and far more expressively than triggered samples IMHO.
As for hacking piezos, no I suspect not...as others ahve suggested things like ghost saddles to get a signal out with all the extention synth components are at least a way to get triggers out of the instrument, but you still need the rest of the paraphenalia to get that to trigger things and the synth too.
I'm not seeing or hearing the things I'd like to hear out of the 'digital' effects and such either to be honest though extremely useful and ubiquous. Again, perhaps it is a bit of teh 'threashold' one holds to such things, they sound equivilent to MP# versions of the real things, at best. As 'presets' they are way overblown and hyped and once you tame them down and make soemthing 'unique' or authentic out of them, you often find a lot of digital noise without the noisegates and still compressed even with the compression turned off. Obviously useful and works for soemthings very well, like delays, but for other things like distorions and such, still not convinced at all. A mix of analogue and digital seems more appropriate there.
Another thing touched on, for many is the opening line of the OP...
Salient for those that may think that 'peizo' on an electric guitar means 'acoustic' which I suspect comes up again and again, and in this case a good name brand piezo expert system.
And what is this 'organic sound'?...would that be something that, one the shine and novelty has worn off, would reveal the important details and nuances that make the analogue instrument so much more convincing and powerful as an expressive tool?
So, while I love the 'promise' of much of this, the eality seems to fall far short compared to what the guitar can do so well and hitting against massive practical problems as a 'controller' for so many things, many largely overcome by the use of a keyboard controller.
If one is going to go with a digital thing too, I'd be seriously considering dropping eh guitarists tube amp thing too, that is only going to colour the sound and never going to bring you the full range response that you would need to take advantage of the sound potential. On that point equally, you are not going to get that kind of thing out of a piezo system into a conventional guitar amp either. I'm considering such issues myself and likely to require a combination of compact PA and guitar amplifier to come close to the kind of thing necessary to amplify a conventional wide range of guitar sounds out of my modified acoustic!
Perhaps it is time we started to look at alternatives to the 'box in the corner' guitar amplifier and not just patch a digital effect or even synthi into the archaic and expect to get the kind of sound we want from things...so, you are looking now at not just the cost of the technology to get the triggers out fo the gutiar, the conversion and the synths and sample libraries, but a virtual PA as well.
I some how doubt that we have the technique (let alone the equipment) to really take full advantage of the possibilities of such tone libraries either, the lack seems so often in the creative element, composition and imagination and technical skill and the instruments natural limitations (only 6 strings, only notes reachable by a single hands stretch, coordination of the two hands to make a note, etc)...
That is not to say it is not going to be a lot of fun, but like the sustainer thing, once you can hold a note for three days, what are you going to do with it. That technology is well advanced in several forms and yet, you are just not hearing it, even from those who adhere to the 'promise' that people percieve in the idea of it.
To me it seems, at least at this point of time, that the keyboard is the more practical controller, for all the lack of my skill, for this kind of technology on the whole and if access to such sounds are that important to the creative process, then getting some basics down on that interface seems to be the more 'sensible' and powerful choice to produce them. As Pete Townsend has said, if he were to set out to do what he did back then today, he'd be doing it with a omputer and a keyboard than with a guitar...and many people are working in that direction to create music and music production...what does the guitar offer that that approach offers as a controller, other than that happens to be something we are familiar with and so 'easy' to adapt to?
Anyway, numerous things one might ask of such technology and a whole range of technical issues and traditional guitaristic biases to overcome before it's going to be a worthy competitor to what the guitar can already do so well expressively and been so successful at doing for so long. Why are we playing or aspiring or even approximately modelling these 'classic' sounds when digitally we could be creating anything? Why a heavy tube 'box in the corner' when we could have a full spectrum amplifier and breadth of spread and depth with a different approach?
And for all the digial stuff, in the end we hear analoguely anyway, there will it seems always be a little 'missing' in the translation, especially with the extra layer the analogue guitar posses to the whole process compared to the simple 'switches' of a keyboard to do much the same and is a direct competitor in terms of midi controller...remember too that vioins and other instruments are hundreds of years old and yet, still thrive today and these things are largely desired to imitate the analuge sounds of them, I suspect that the guitar will similarly not go the way suggested by some regardless of the way technology progresses...could be wrong but a long way yet for that suggestion to have any teeth in the future prognosis...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 23:33:27 GMT -5
and an even bigger market in cds CDs *are* digital music. Its just not compressed digital audio. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 3:10:16 GMT -5
MP3's are vastly inferior to the 'real thing' of digital WAV or analogue. The re-rise in vinyl is largely because the 'remastered CD's' have the dynamics compressed out of them for contemporary ears that 'like' the compressed sound of remastered CD's and MP3's and such, these technologies were largely to shrink the files and such of course, not to improve the sound in any way. There are two kinds of compression : lossy and lossless. An example of lossless CODEC is FLAC. With FLAC you shouldn't experience any loss in quality compared to CD audio, since all the information is there. An example of lossy is Mpeg-1/2 Layer III (our known MP3). With MP3 you might experience some loss in quality. However at bit rates higher than 256 Kbits/sec you should not experience practically any difference in comparison to the CD uncompressed audio. In addition, the frequency of the signal must be considerably high in order for higher bit rates to gain any benefit. As an example, in a simple song with few instruments and slow melodies (no shredding light-speed solos here), you could get away with lower bit rates than 256 Kbits/sec and still not notice any difference in quality. The sampling rate in order to be able to capture and digitize the original signal and thus be able later to reproduce the original signal must be such as that it satisfies the Nyquist Criterion. The lower the frequency (the signal frequency not the frequency of the notes played, not to be confused with this), the lower the bit rate can be, without losing information. |
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Jul 24, 2013 4:04:44 GMT -5
True, but very few people listen to Flacc or Wav quality lossless MP3s and the like...there is a vast difference in quality and that is what is usually consumed...Youtube and such is generally even worse. I wonder if peoples 'threashold' for such things is goping down personally. And while a lot of the simulators are very good and in a 'mix' is fine, in reality I at least, have not heard anything that really matches the experience of a good amp and generally people, to me, seem not to be running such things through systems that can accurately reprodce stuff. In general it seems few even tweak the presets or really ahve a handle of what is happening in the box, let alone what to compare things too to make a value judgement 'comparison'. I'm all for them in their place, but there is a lot of approaches that I suspect need changing before it becomes a 'default' approach to the instrument generally, there is just way too much tradition and mojo about the guitar community yet I think...
Could be wrong though, but where is the results to judge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 5:19:47 GMT -5
I'm all for them in their place, but there is a lot of approaches that I suspect need changing before it becomes a 'default' approach to the instrument generally, there is just way too much tradition and mojo about the guitar community yet I think... What i have witnessed is that in these days Rock, guitars, etc... are endorsed in mass media. E.g. my kids watch nickelodeon and it is full of images of bands, rock, guitars and the like. You can see rockers in TV ads, all this new hippie stuff, etc.. When i was a kid, rock'n'roll didnt seem to be so mainstream. As a matter of fact it was considered heretic. So, i think, the revival of the guitar, and especially the re-introduction of the image of the "Les paul" which was almost dead and gone by the 80s, which came by mass advertising, also contributed to the comeback of the traditional mojo around classic rock. Dunno, maybe Rock/Jazz/Blues played such an impact to music, that the electric guitar, instead of a natural progression in the evolution process became a kind of classic and stable value. Hadn't thought of that till now. Maybe electric guitar has become so classic that it will stay vintage for many years to come. |
|
). 
