Community: Message List - Your configuration in pedalboard mode

Re: Your configuration in pedalboard mode

support@line6.com — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:00:48 GMT

tommasi wrote:

For certain pedalboard configurations I assign multiple effects to the same footswitch, in order to engage a combination of those, or to alternate between 2 configurations.

This is what I was looking for, I want to kick in 10db of gain and some delay for leads only. I can just set up on footswitch for leads!

Re: Your configuration in pedalboard mode

support@line6.com — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 20:17:41 GMT

Ok, I know it's an old thread, but this is EXACTLY what I need - a third footswitch mode that moves preset selection to the back row. I find it hard to program patches that require all 8 without running out of DSP, and I'm forever hitting the wrong FS when aiming for the back row of footswitches.

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:17:07 GMT

I regularly use a JVM410H and own a JCM 900 2500 that is collecting dust. While the JCM900 does have a diode clipping stage, it can be circumvented by turning the gain to zero, making it sound very much like a JCM800 2204. I occasionally have access to both a JCM800 2203 and a JMP 2203 as well. None of these four heads are lacking in bass like the model found in the HD500, and they shouldn't since they have very similar topologies and tone stacks. Cabinets used are Marshall 1960A and 1960AC.

Be careful when comparing levels of gain against the 2205, which, like the JCM900 2500, also has a diode clipping stage feeding the last gain stage before the cathode follower that drives the tone stack. Remember, Line 6 claims to model a 2204 which has exactly the same preamp as a 2203. Also be careful when comparing gain and tone with the JVM205. The closest you will get to the 2204 on a JVM205 is clean/crunch orange. There has been a lot of discussion about the tomfoolery in the manual for the two-channel JVM backed by schematic comparisons and frequency sweeps. Clean/crunch orange on the JVM2 is essentially the same as Crunch orange on the JVM4, which is their approximation of a 2203/2204. The overdrive channel of the JVM2 is the same as the overdrive 2 channel of the JVM4 where the middle control has been shifted downward in frequency.

HTH

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:03:21 GMT

Right now I have two Marshall heads that are mine: TSL100 and a JVM205H which I can either use with a Marshall 4x12 loaded with Celestion V30s or with one or two 1922 cabs loaded with Celestion G12T75s. I have a little 1x12 2554 combo too. Additionally I have access to a JCM800 head too - I'm not sure of the model - I think it may be a 2205, and I've used other JCM800 heads over the years..

Nick

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:58:54 GMT

Those are great points indeed, Nick. Luckily HD500 to HD500 won't have all the variables at play. Even if the HD500 model does match the actual preamp being modeled (which I am seriously doubting if I am to believe the unit was stock and in perfect working order), that model is way out of the JCM800 ballpark with too much gain and not enough bass. These differences are not even subtle and not easily attributable to tolerances wheras the top-end differences are more subtle and could be attributable to tolerances. Luckily gain can be rolled back, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way when there is insufficient bass response.

Out of curiousity, could you tell me which Marshall head and cabinet you are using?

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:30:33 GMT

gregr wrote:

Typical stock, all tube-based JCM800s (eg: 2203) simply do not have that amount of gain in the preamp section and provide lots of bass.

Again(!), if you're comparing preamp to preamp, the rest does not matter, unless you're suggesting the rest of the system (including the auditory system of the listener) is masking those differences. In my case, the Marshall amp and cabinet were not masking the differences. If I had made a recording I would have also been able to demonstrate that my psycho/auditory system was not creating differences that didn't actually exist.

Hmmm...

I understand what you're saying. Pre-amp to pre-amp comparisons are not really possible without introducuing other equipment and necessarily other factors. When it comes to tube amps it is also entirely possible that two supposedly identical amps based on the spec on paper can sound quite different in practice as I said before as in practice whilst in an ideal world all components used in building an amp would be identical and therefore they would perform in exactly the same way, the reality is often that components get changed between different batches because of the supply chain and what happens to be available. Circuits also undergo minor revisions from time to time. The age of the tubes the brand of the tubes the voltage supplied to thise tubes and the frequency of the power supply all have a subtle effect on how things will actually sound. There are so many potential variables between pre-amps and power amps which are supposedly identical that will affect the whole signal chain.

We're obviously hearing something quite different. Again I'm not arguing with anything you say about your system. The pre-amp that was actually modelled will be what's being reproduced in the POD HD and that specific pre-amp is the key here. I am pretty certain that before the amp and pre-amp were modelled they received some attention in terms of a service. I'm not aware of any modifications to that amp which would cause it to behave differently, however I am pretty sure that the amp actually modelled by Line 6 will have been selected because it sounded the best to them from possibly a number of possible candidates they might have auditioned.

But nevertheless, my experience/opinion of the J-800 Pre from the HD500 into my Marshall kit is obviously very different to yours with your Marshall kit.

The only real wayto test what we are hearing would be to place my rig, your rig, a couple of different JCM-800 amps/speakers in the same room with the amp/pre-amp that was the basis of the model and to perform a proper A/B test - but that's not going to happen in reality.

A set of comparitive recordings isn't really going to work either unless absolutely everything is identical.

Personally I'm happy with the J-800 Pre and for me it performs pretty much as the real thing does in my own comparitive testing. It is subjective and a matter of personal opinion/preference and without knowing the fine detail about the specific pre-amp and power amp that were modelled and actually having that amp in the room there'd be no way to come anywhere near actually proving or disproving that the JCM800 pre-amp model actually sounds accurate when compared with the real pre-amp that was modelled

If you believe it's wrong and I'm not saying you are right or wrong in your assessment as it's your opinion and your belief, then you should submit product feedback so that the product development team can be made aware directly using the Product Feedback link you'll find using the Contact Us link at the foot of the page and maybe the JCM800 pre-amp model will be looked at again

Nick

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:21:07 GMT

Typical stock, all tube-based JCM800s (eg: 2203) simply do not have that amount of gain in the preamp section and provide lots of bass.

Again(!), if you're comparing preamp to preamp, the rest does not matter, unless you're suggesting the rest of the system (including the auditory system of the listener) is masking those differences. In my case, the Marshall amp and cabinet were not masking the differences. If I had made a recording I would have also been able to demonstrate that my psycho/auditory system was not creating differences that didn't actually exist.

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:04:29 GMT

OK - fair enough. All you can do is speak as you find. As I said I'm not doubting your experience and what you hear with your rig. It's subjective based on a lot of subtle physical variables including the host power amp which can be variable due to the brand of tubes, age of tubes, bias settings etc...and the speakers in use in the cab and the design of the cab. You have to remember that the pre-amp and power amp that have been modelled have probably been restored as close to original spec for that specific model as possible and that as a result the amp may be considered to have been optimised in a certain way, which is not to say that the modelled pre-amp is better or worse than the real preamp in your specific amp - just different perhaps. Beyond that it's simply a matter of opinion. I'm not arguing with what you heard. I was just surprised at your comment that's all.

My experience is obviously different to yours though - it works well here and as far as I'm concerned with my HD500, my Marshall amp + Marshall 4x12 with my guitars it is pretty hard to tell the difference in a straight A/B comparison with my set-up

Nick

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:34:11 GMT

TheRealZap wrote:

have you tried adjusting the new master volume control on the amp...
i tend to think the 800 is done well...

I was comparing the preamp section only.

Re: Marshall to a tee

support@line6.com — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:32:41 GMT

Yes Nick, really; otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

I tested the J-800 pre without cabinet modeling into the power amp in of a real Marshall tube amp driving and real Marshall cabinet. That doesn't really matter, however, so long as you're doing an apples to apples comparison with everything else held constant (preamp vs. preamp, cabinet and poweramp remain unchanged). I wish I had made recordings at the time.

J-800 PRE: too much gain, no bass response, lacking definition in the high end with a non-Marshally peak in the low trebble.