Photonic guitar pickup has fiber Fabry-Perot cavity

[cozy]

Isn't that known as conservatism...? Granted, while some of the exploits of modern technology manufacturers can certainly be seen as eccentric at best, I like to remember that progress in the name of moderation staunchly defeats any pretense that infers a return to "the way things were"... For what it's worth, I can accurately surmise the reasoning behind an advancement of musical technology, with relevant implications for theology as well, if anyone's interested.

[Rick Turner]

Light beam pickups only make sense if they either sound significantly better than what is out there or they cost less by a wide margin. So far, I've not seen any optical pickups that met either one of those criteria. Then there's the fact that you have to light shield the things or they respond to ambient light. Ever been on a big rock'n'roll stage?

I think there's a whole lot of pickup stuff that is great for the science fair, but can it sound like Eric Clapton circa John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers? Or Sonny Landreth? Or David Lindley?

I'm always suspicious of technology for technology's sake. Geek wiz-bang does not a great sounding guitar make. You'll notice that the Lightwave system has achieved the same acceptance level as what? To use a parallel re. an instrument recently discussed here, let's just say Gittler. In fact, perhaps there are more Gittlers out there than Lightwave equipped basses or guitars. Even the Edsel did better in its own marketplace...

This is not necessarily about conservative vs. open minded...which is the curtain which rejected geeks hide behind. It's about what sounds good for how much dough.

Optical pickups have been around for at least 35 years, and so far, the best use I've seen was for driving synths using nylon strings (Photon Midi Converter, circa 1987/'88, bought by Gibson)...a task for which piezos do a better job for less dough. Frankly, the market for synth/Floyd Rose equipped guitars is not one I'd waste a lot of time chasing...given that I know that Lightwave spent in excess of $250,000.00 attempting to bring their product to market...and failed with regard to ROI.

The funniest story about the Lightwave that I heard was when they did a photo shoot in a recording studio with Leland Sklar. He was all plugged in and playing, and the photographer shot a picture with a flash. That just about took care of one channel of the console, the power amp, and the studio monitors...

[cozy]

Progress

Light beam pickups only make sense if they either sound significantly better than what is out there or they cost less by a wide margin. So far, I've not seen any optical pickups that met either one of those criteria. Then there's the fact that you have to light shield the things or they respond to ambient light. Ever been on a big rock'n'roll stage?

I think there's a whole lot of pickup stuff that is great for the science fair, but can it sound like Eric Clapton circa John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers? Or Sonny Landreth? Or David Lindley?

I'm always suspicious of technology for technology's sake. Geek wiz-bang does not a great sounding guitar make. You'll notice that the Lightwave system has achieved the same acceptance level as what? To use a parallel re. an instrument recently discussed here, let's just say Gittler. In fact, perhaps there are more Gittlers out there than Lightwave equipped basses or guitars. Even the Edsel did better in its own marketplace...

This is not necessarily about conservative vs. open minded...which is the curtain which rejected geeks hide behind. It's about what sounds good for how much dough.

Optical pickups have been around for at least 35 years, and so far, the best use I've seen was for driving synths using nylon strings (Photon Midi Converter, circa 1987/'88, bought by Gibson)...a task for which piezos do a better job for less dough. Frankly, the market for synth/Floyd Rose equipped guitars is not one I'd waste a lot of time chasing...given that I know that Lightwave spent in excess of $250,000.00 attempting to bring their product to market...and failed with regard to ROI.

The funniest story about the Lightwave that I heard was when they did a photo shoot in a recording studio with Leland Sklar. He was all plugged in and playing, and the photographer shot a picture with a flash. That just about took care of one channel of the console, the power amp, and the studio monitors...

Father Time had some issues with his Lightwave, eh? That's pretty funny... Yes, I agree, the technology hasn't developed to the point where it is as reliable as tried-and-true methods of good hardwood, magnetics and tube amps, but I don't mean to make this a matter of whether or not people are "ready" for something like that. I just think that there is promise with this type of thing, even if over a broad time frame, and I personally enjoy exploring such avenues of thought as much as I enjoy ripping licks on my plain old paulownia 6 string with humbuckers.

FWIW, I'm not particularly interested in marketing such a product; just getting it to the point where it's playable enough for that "big rock 'n' roll stage". Maybe if Allan Gittler had spent more time on that simple requirement, he wouldn't have been fleeced by a substandard manufacturing operation that all but destroyed the unique instrument he had a vision for.

[Rick Turner]

Gittler's real problem was not manufacturing nor marketing nor even the bizarre pickup system. It was that he managed to design the most uncomfortable-to-play guitar of all times.

I'd still like to have one hanging on my wall, though. As a piece of modern industrial art, it's simply amazing.

It's easy to forget the most basic two things about guitars...they have to feel good and sound good. Then they should look good and be (relatively) affordable, which doesn't mean cheap; it just means good value for however much dough. Way down the list of criteria comes wiz-bang technology, and the technology should not there for any other purpose than to make a better musical tool.

Just my opinionated opinion, but I have been watching this business for about 50 years now, and nothing I've seen over that time contradicts what I'm saying. And I'm no Luddite...

[RedHouse]

Isn't that known as conservatism...? ...

No, it's called using technology where it's effectively needed, as in my example toasters are not where it's needed.

But feel free to be all over microchip-embeded guitar picks for $5/ea when they come out, I'm sure they'll help ones playing knowing one has the latest technology.

[cozy]

Thanks for the honest feedback, Rick. You do make some points that are oftentimes ill-considered.

As far as microchip embedded guitar picks... It's easier to do that kind of stuff yourself! You could build a shell casing around one of Infusion Systems bluetooth MIDI controller and add an accelerometer, inclination sensor, and the like. With that in mind, I think that experimentation of this kind is almost better relegated to D.I.Y. enthusiasts like myself, though. I have no qualms about sub-$100 investments for things that I will derive untold hours of enjoyment from, especially when, as a guitarist, it's got the ability to allow me to just control synth parameters directly from the axe, as opposed to reaching to some clunky desktop MIDI controller.

[RedHouse]

....As far as microchip embedded guitar picks... It's easier to do that kind of stuff yourself! You could build a shell casing around one of Infusion Systems bluetooth MIDI controller and add an accelerometer, inclination sensor, and the like. With that in mind, I think that experimentation of this kind is almost better relegated to D.I.Y. enthusiasts like myself, though. I have no qualms about sub-$100 investments for things that I will derive untold hours of enjoyment from, especially when, as a guitarist, it's got the ability to allow me to just control synth parameters directly from the axe, as opposed to reaching to some clunky desktop MIDI controller....

Can't wait to see it, and hear your sound clips.