OMG this is one UGLY beast! I'm gonna have to see what it plays and sounds like, but I wouldn't own one simply because I find it ugly. What do y'all think.

_________________
"Life is like eating jalapenos. What you do today may burn your arse tomorrow"

Thats downright offensive looking.

_________________
Rated "M" for meaty.

im suing gibson. that just made my eyes explode.

_________________
Favorite bands:

Melvins
The Jesus Lizard
Cows
Big Business
R***man
Minutemen
Flight
Minor Threat
Big Black
Shellac
Karp
Scratch Acid
Wipers
Pixies

All it needs aestheticaly is a reversed explorer headstock. That 3 a side nonsense looks bad.

Aside from that it's just another attempt for a very out of touch with the market company to come up with something new.

Who the hell wants a crappy fx processor built into their guitar? I mean guitar modeling is one thing. Especially in a recording enviroment. Studio's have effects processors though. As soon as the effects engine is superseeded (happens on a 6 monthly basis) you're lumbered with a instrument of yesterday. Vox tried it decades ago with the phantom and the teardrop. It didn't work for them, players back then were a lot less conservative and willing to try new things too.

I like the look of the body, I've always liked the Firebird. As I said it needs to lose the 3 a side headstock.

I wonder whats going on at Gibson. Is Henry paying the designers in PCP or crack or something?

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/gibson_announces_the_revolutionary_firebird_x.html

_________________
No no and no

When the reverse Firebird came on the market it became my dream guitar and finally last Christmas my wife gave me my first Firebird-an Epi Firebird V but the reverse 64 Firebird VII is still my dream guitar.When the non-reverse Firebird came out I thought it was downright ugly and couldn't get any uglier but with the new X Henry J. and company have succeeded in surpassing it in profound ugliness-well done Henry-another POS to add to the pile with the Dusk Tiger,Dark Force,Jimi Hendrix Gibson Strat, Keifer Sutherland model,Robot Guitar and that multihued plywood SG Zoot Suit.

_________________
'65 Strat,65 Mustang,65 Jaguar,4 more Strats,3 vintage Vox guitars,5 Vox amps,'69 Bassman with a '68 2-15 Bassman cab,36 guitars total-15asst'd amps total,2 vintage '60s Hammond organs & a myriad of effects-with a few rare vintage ones.

I was waiting for this thread to start ever since I got the email this morning. LOL Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find the new Fender Blacktops pretty offensive. Humbuckers and amp knobs on a Strat? Yow....

Who wants a crappy fx processor built into their guitar? The same folks who want them built into their amps.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal

Well yeah maybe? Maybe 15 year old kids, but they aint gonna shell out $5K on a little know gibbo that isn't played by there heroes.

Myself I find it more of a travesty because I interact with my guitar, the guitar interacts with my amp.
I'd hate to become attatched to a guitar that is going to one day be outdated and not supported.

Anyways, whilst your here mr Supro. Any idea on a good cap value on my fuzz pedal. I'm using a B50k pot for the tone, or have I gone wrong doing that?
I've tried out 22nf, 50nf, 1uf. The 22 made little difference. Both the 50nf and the 1uf gave a stupid amount of bass.

_________________
No no and no

Niki,
In my pedal, increasing the value of any of the caps gave me
more low end or reduce the highs in some way. I built 2 BYOC overdrives one stock and one tweaked. The stock pedal sounds great with Humbuckers but really thin with my 72 Strat and 57 Dano. I don't know what pedal, amp or guitar you're using. I wound up using some 47n and 50n caps and changed a resistor to increase the gain. YMMV

About the guitar, I don't think anyone's going to plunk down 5k for that guitar. It looks like they should be selling it at "Toys R Us" along with the Blacktops. I got to try a Blacktop Strat and wasn't the least bit impressed with the look, sound, quality or setup. Just me though. Both Fender and Gibson should build what they know. The cheaper American series are pretty nice though. Seems worth the $7 or 800 they get for them.

These new guitars remind of cars they were building in the 70's All they need is a little wood grain to finish them off. They look tacky. Funny thing is Fender and Gibson were never really known for great effects even though I do love the fuzz in my old Fender Fuzz Wah.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal

When I have finished this pedal (mucking about with the input impedance next, so it will take a wah) I'll send you a scetch out of it. No schematics out of me, I struggle to read em let alone draw em.
I got the tone control sussed out great. I lowered the value of the pot to a alpha 5k and stuck with the 22nf cap. Not too impressed with the alpha sweep, but the lower resistance works well. It will certainly do till I get up to the nearest tronics shop.
The only problem now is that input impedance. Wah infront of the fuzz, it squeals. Put it after the fuzz, it picks up radio Moscow (no joke. I spent half hour wah'ing russian classical music).

I really think the big companies are struggling to come up with new designs. I think their stuck in a damned if they do, damned if they dont situation.
Such is the price of their heritage I suppose.

Still I think Henry would be better off to sign me up to do it. I'd like to see both Gibson and Fender go for more eco friendly manufactured guitars. Kind of like the Gibson Smartwood series. That idea had so much potential yet fell fowl of Gibsons unwillingness to make anything that doesn't sell for silly money, a good les paul ES or SG. Also I think they were too soon with the idea too.

_________________
No no and no

Gibson just needs to stop with all this nonsense.... especially all the robot stuff

Just my opinion

So does Fender. Alert! We have yet another John Mayer Sig Strat.

I'd rather just see a handful of well built great sounding models. I don't need or want 300 versions of a Strat or Tele. If I want to change something, I'll mod it myself. Some performers like the Gibson Robbie the Robot tuning thing. The battery eating VG Strat was another weird thing. I think the robot is a little better than the VG just because it's mechanical.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal

Yeah, hell has broke loose with this.

Even at the Ibanez forums theres slander going on. Even a little photoshoping....

http://forum.ibanez.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=81571

_________________
"Oh, it's a windy and sunny day
And I can hear the faint sound of distant waves
The past weeks have been going by so fast
It's all the same, the bright sky and shining sun
I have a feeling it's gonna be a fun day"

it's weird looking. very weird. too many gadgets for me.
i like the one pickup, one volume knob set up. nobody seems to want to produce such a simple guitar like that anymore unless you do it yourself like i did.
maybe i'm weird.

Na, ibanez made a whole bunch of guitars like that during the 80s and early 90s.

_________________
"Oh, it's a windy and sunny day
And I can hear the faint sound of distant waves
The past weeks have been going by so fast
It's all the same, the bright sky and shining sun
I have a feeling it's gonna be a fun day"

Isn't that body design from Fernandez?

Heres the original non reverse Firebird. Bit of a classic in my opinion.



The Fernandez Elite


Th X



Am I the only one who sees more Fernandez than Firebird in that?

So we have a guitar with idea's borrowed from failed Vox's. A bodyshape heavily borrowed from a short lived metal guitar. And a user interface designed by Nokia.

And they expect it to succeed? They smashed a perfectly good SG up to demonstrate how much better this mutant is?

Thats the best laugh I've had all week.

Real guitar builders the world over must be happily rubbing their wallets expecting a mass exodus away from Gibson.


Anyways the Gibson forums are full of disgust for this. That company must be in real trouble. Why can't they see it? To go clutching at outmoded ideas from yesteryear like this.
Here's a video of the guitar in action.

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/57553-in-case-anyone-want-to-hear-it/

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but people have been putting wireless receivers into their amps for years. No matter where the sender is, there has to be a receiver. On a lot of shared stages, you have to adjust frequencies. I've noticed that more and more over the last 6 months as wireless grows in popularity. Same frequency users become more common.
Also the thing aint doing anything a digitech rp50 doesn't do.

_________________
No no and no