Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Sinisa Cekic Nov 8 2010, 01:11 PM

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Firebird/Gibson-USA/Firebird-X.aspx

In my humble opinion.. this is a joke of the year !!!
You do not have to agree with me, but I simply can't get myself to find at least a part of something, shown in this video, which convinced me that this is worth 5,5 K ?!?

Posted by: MickeM Nov 8 2010, 01:25 PM

totaly agree, they add som crap, call it a limited edition revolution and raise the price. Being it's a limited edition they might be able to trick enough poor (or rich) souls into buying it.

Posted by: Daniel Realpe Nov 8 2010, 02:07 PM

I'm going to agree with you, :S

Posted by: ZakkWylde Nov 8 2010, 03:06 PM

I hate how they run down the company that I love the most -.-

Posted by: NoSkill Nov 8 2010, 03:38 PM

If it's not THE joke of the year, it's certainly in the running.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Nov 8 2010, 04:01 PM

It should be called very limited Gibson Downfall

Posted by: Crazy_Diamond Nov 8 2010, 05:01 PM

That is so ugly....I don't care about auto tuning guitar and other kind of revolution in technology. I want something affordable.

Posted by: Sollesnes Nov 8 2010, 05:02 PM

What an aweful looking guitar.. and it looks even smaller due to the man playing being big. Then again, Gibson has released a lot of weird stuff lately.

Posted by: kaznie_NL Nov 8 2010, 05:06 PM

If it would have been a stunner, but no they even made it ugly Gibson really is doing some serious weird things, like the holy explorer, inverted flying V and the Dusk Tiger ><

Posted by: ZakkWylde Nov 8 2010, 05:20 PM

The company is on a downward spiral and the CEO and the other Gibson managers only seem to think in their own world...

So far we have these problems with Gibson:
-senior builders tend to leave the company because of new working conditions
-quality control was on an all time low a few years back which resulted in a lack of trust by the buyers
-too many variations of the same guitar (especially the Les Paul) which makes it confusing to find the right one
-horrible design ideas that nobody wants to buy (reverse guitars, zoo suit guitars, holy guitars)
-trying to force a modern image on a vintage style company with badly designed robot guitars and such
-the lack to see that fans crave for specs such as longer scale length, diffrent pickups, thinner necks and such

Posted by: NoSkill Nov 8 2010, 06:13 PM

Now that Axcess was a cool guitar. Too bad they dumped that. If we'd have seen a 25.5" scale with the heal contour. Yummy. *shrug*

Posted by: Fran Nov 8 2010, 06:30 PM

I don't like the shape very much... nor the color... or the headstock...

Besides, the sounds it emulates, that's what I have a POD for.

I agree with Zakk. Why don't they release things e actually care about. I'd love a thin neck Gibson for a change.

Posted by: Captain Insaino Nov 8 2010, 06:42 PM

I have been looking for an orignal firebird for a while now, these new contraptions are just so way out side what most of their customers want, its not funny. If they are marketing to the young crownd they have gone wrong, i dont know any young guys who can drop 5k on an axe.... The older guys who could pay that much for an axe wont buy that crap...


edit: Caps to lowercase - Chris

Posted by: Sollesnes Nov 8 2010, 09:37 PM

Ah, talking about where Gibson should put their money. A sevenstring Steinberger ZT-3 would be AWESOME

Posted by: slash48 Nov 8 2010, 10:01 PM

It looks like a strange Carnival ride....The color scheme is making me quite nauseous. I wonder what they were thinking

Posted by: Mudbone Nov 8 2010, 11:02 PM

I think I'm gonna be the only person to say that its actually kinda cool. Not 5k worth of cool, but definitely something I would play with were I to come across it at a guitar shop. This guitar is targeted towards a specific crowd, and is only in limited production. Gibson knows this ain't going to revolutionize the guitar, they just want to get a buzz going to get people to go check out their products. We're talking about it right now, so I guess their marketing ploy has been somewhat effective

Would I buy one right now in my current financial situation? Hell no, but if I had thousands upon thousands of disposable income, I would pick one up. Come on, are you trying to tell me none of you wouldn't mess around with this thing for hours on end?

Posted by: brandon Nov 8 2010, 11:17 PM

I agree man, Gibson has dropped the ball on the last couple of "innovations" they've had.

Posted by: newguyatgmc Nov 9 2010, 01:12 AM

yuck......I dont feel like going to the gibson website because this crap thing shows up right in the front....I hate gibson because they rip people off....I think that technological innovation is cool .. ...but this is way too retarded


But, my favourite is the Tony Iommi Signature SG..I saw the OZZFEST DVD and that thing sounds heavier than anything else ..such a fat ballsy tone....loved it

Posted by: ZakkWylde Nov 9 2010, 10:16 AM

The tone of their guitars is still unrivaled! It's also the reson the company hasn't gone bankrupt by now...

Posted by: newguyatgmc Nov 9 2010, 03:32 PM

@ZAKK The funny part isthey are removing all the good models out of the line. Like the iommi sg and gothic les paul.

I saw a guy playing this les paul gibson gothic....it was a pure metal machine...

I wonder if any body at gmc has a gibson gothic lespaul

Posted by: Praetorian Nov 10 2010, 02:33 AM

Let's not forget the Coffin guitar! Or is that just Epiphone?

Posted by: NoSkill Nov 10 2010, 03:06 AM

I knew when Praetorian chimed in, it was gonna be good. The coffin. Yup, another classic! *groan*

Posted by: Fran Nov 10 2010, 10:39 AM

It's an epi.
Best thing about that one is its coffin-case, I'm still waiting the day I see someone carrying one of those in the street

Posted by: MickeM Nov 10 2010, 10:53 AM

...on his way to a funeral gig

Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Nov 12 2010, 01:03 AM

Man, I understand what they wanted to do here, but revolution? This is very poor attempt as far as I'm concerned. I've seen a LOT better guitars from private luthiers, who's working for Gibson as a guitar designer? What effects can they place on that little chip? Today's processors are struggling with 2A rack units to get a decent sound. I suppose guitars WILL follow this concept in the future, but this is not revolution at all.

Gibson, the company with such a big tradition, makes this funny shape, and these funny effects? Onboard AD/DA? Gibson - placing on their official site this:

"a fantastically high bit depth and resolution that there are virtually no truncation errors or other artifacts, truly preserving the analog quality of the original signal"

What's that bit depth again? This is what I would expect from Behr, not Gibson..

Posted by: tonymiro Nov 12 2010, 01:20 PM

Seems a bit of a shame that the Gibson techie info is dubious.

Truncation is not an artifact.

Bit depth and resolution do not directly lead to truncation errors. Truncation occurs when you reduce bit depth, and is normally dealt with by dithering. In some (very few) musical cases hard truncation can produce better audio than dithering.

No digital signal 'truly preserves the analogue quality of the original signal'. It just can't regardless of how high a bit depth and resolution you have.

I haven't looked to see what bit depth and resolution the Gibson has but IMHO all it needs at most is 24 bit and 48k. An electric guitar does not need anything like the 144dB dynamic range of 24 bit so any more is just a waste. The frequency range for an electric guitar is mostly low mid with harmonics and character extending up in to the high mid 1-6kHz range. 48k would set the Nyquist up at 24k and so again is plenty even is you do a 2x upsample. Anything more than 2x is pretty pointless for electric guitar.

Again most pro studio outboard runs at 24 bit fixed. Any other bit depth requires conversion and can lead to truncation issues. So again because of this the best bit depth for Gibson to use would be 24 fixed.

Again I don't know how Gibson and distributing the digital signal - I assume they are using on-board DA. If they are then they should also give an on-board option to bypass the DA and take a direct digital signal out. So you can have analogue to feed traditional amps and consoles and digital direct to a pc and DAW. If there is no bypass then potentially you will do multiple, unnecessary AD/DA conversion just to get the signal in to a DAW.

If they are providing a digital out then what's the interface? Most pro studios would want digital AES/EBU XLR but very few project/home set ups use this and would probably want a simple USB, s-pdif or Toslink lightpipe.

Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Nov 12 2010, 03:21 PM

It seems that onboard converter is contained on this small chip here.




I've also read on one review that battery time is around 4 hours. Not good at all.. Perhaps they should consider with external power adapter or something, possibly through special guitar cable. It would mean a lot I mean..

Posted by: newguyatgmc Nov 14 2010, 04:54 PM

Okay ...I gotta say this now....

Based on what ZaKK said, I was really keen on trying these guitars myself just to check the tone factor. I have always seen people playing gibson but never tried one myself.

So, I went to the guitar centre and tested a few high end SGs($1300 and $2000 ). I also tried a few Les Pauls ($2500 and above).

I was testing them on a Mesa Boogie amp....and my god the tone was juuuuuuuuussssssssst amazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing.......It felt so powerful...I loved it....I felt that the SG was bit more comfortable to play but the tone was just so awesome from both models it was like a revelation....I was so tempted to buy it...but I thought I will wait before I do the right research....

Any ways it was a lot of fun to play those guitars.

Posted by: ZakkWylde Nov 14 2010, 05:08 PM

It's incredible how much better the Gibson Version of a similar guitar sounds! Just compare an ESP Eclipse Full Thickness (which is a great guitar) with it's Gibson equivalent, the Les Paul Custom. The diffrence in tone is amazing although hardware, contstruction and wood are essentially the same!

Posted by: newguyatgmc Nov 14 2010, 06:42 PM

Yes,u are right. I actually tried that model too. There is huge difference. Gibson has a remarkably amazing sustain. ESP is nowhere close

Posted by: MonkeyDAthos Nov 14 2010, 06:47 PM

errr.. first this maybe in few years, we'll all gonna start to play on digital guitars

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Nov 14 2010, 07:16 PM

When I am reading about Gibson superiority I feel like I am doing something wrong having a schecter Also buying any new guitar from another brand seems like a huge mistake, considering how pathetic the guitar would be in compare to Gibson I assume this is true, although it is hard to believe that other companies didn't figure out how to make a comparable guitars in so many years.

Posted by: ZakkWylde Nov 14 2010, 07:40 PM

Oh Gibsons are nowhere comparable to the build quality of an ESP, Ibanez or Jackson guitar!
Actually the quality control on Gibson guitars is pretty low and the quality of the finish and woodwork are quite bad for the price you pay!

Gibson advertises these flaws as: They are made by hand, not machines!

But high end Jacksons, Ibanez and other brands are also manufactured by hand any they have a much higher standard in quality.
Also Gibson guitars are pretty pre-historic if you compare them to more modern guitars: fat necks, small scale length, outdated manufacturing (the way LP headstocks are gluedto the neck for example), almost no floyd rose guitars and so on.

The only reason to buy a Gibson is because of their tone (they seem to have the best supply of tone woods). If you want a high quality guitar with a flawless finish that is easy to play on, then you are wrong with Gibson!

Posted by: Jasonius Nov 15 2010, 06:20 AM

I'm assuming these new Gibson guitars are more like fancy toys similiar to digital modelling amps . They make neat sounds, but nobody would gig with one on stage. I'm probably wrong, but it will be interesting to see if any pros endorse this one.
I actually don't mind the look of this new Firebird. Not like the "Dusk Tiger". That thing was downright tacky looking.

@Zakk The finish on my LP Traditional is mind blowing. No glued on headstock either. Have to admit that my Ibanez prestige is nicer.

Posted by: Fran Nov 15 2010, 12:17 PM

Wow, that's a beautiful LP indeed Jasonius

Those flamed maple tops are gorgeous.

Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Nov 17 2010, 12:39 AM

I wouldn't go that far, although there is a strong point there. Gibson guitars are nicely made, there aren't that many faults. And there is a reason why they still use outdated manufacturing - bullet proof design that is still one of the best in guitar world. I agree on the tone, and I would add that playing Gibson is not hard at all, at least not for me or for much of the people I've spoken too.

Posted by: Mudbone Nov 17 2010, 01:09 AM

I didn't know Gibson started to glue the headstock onto the neck now, but I know exactly why they started doing it. Gibsons don't have neck volutes, so this system actually strengthens the neck and prevents the headstock from breaking off, something Gibsons are prone to. Glue is much stronger than wood, and without a neck volute, that glued joint is much stronger than any wood could ever be.

Ed Roman, a famous guitar luthier here in the US, has fixed hundreds of snapped Gibson necks. He suggests that its actually better to break the headstock off and glue it back on, thereby making the neck stronger than it ever was.

Check out this article by Ed Roman about Gibson necks:

http://www.edroman.com/rants/les_paul_necks.htm